Stom  f  5e  feiBrati?  of 

in  ^emort?  of 
3uige  ^amuef  Oliffer  QStecftintibge 

(Jjresenteb  6|? 

^amuef  (tttiffet  (jStecfeinribge  feong 

to  f ^  feifirari?  of 

(pnncefon  C^eofogtcaf  ^eminctrj 


BV  813  .H35  1831 

! 

Hamilton,  William  T. 

1796- 

1884. 

Infant  baptism 

4.      ^^i^^^^ 


/^ 


iw  # 


/     -■ — 


/ 


y. 


.  ^ 


iy\^^/  t4^> 


^4  4   •     *         S 


\  •     . 


• 


•         * 


^^mr^a^^. 


INFANT    BAPTISM, 


SCRIPTURAL  ORDINANCE 


BAPTISM   BY   SPRINKLING 


LAWFUL, 


BY  WM.   T.   HAMILTON,  A.M. 

I'Afe.TOB  OF  THE  FIKST  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,  NEWARK,  N.J. 


NEWARK: 

PRINTED  BY   WILLIAM  TLTTLE. 

1831. 


9^^^^«mV 


District  of  XeiD- Jersey,  ss. 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  eleventh  day  of  February,  in  tha 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-one,  and  in  tho 
fifty -fifth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  William 
T.  Hamilton,  of  the  said  District,  hath  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a 
book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  author,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit: 

"Infant  Baptism,  a  Scriptural  Ordinance:  and  Baptism  bv  Sprinkling 
Lawful.  By  VVm.  T.  Hamilton,  A  M.  Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian 
Church,  Newark,  N.J." 

In  conformity  to  an  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "  an 
act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times 
therein  mentioned."  And  also  to  an  Act,  entitled  "  An  act  supplementary  to 
au  Act,  entitled  an  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such 
copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned,  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof 
to  the  arts  of  designing,  etching  and  engraving,  historical  and  other  prints." 

\Vm.  PENNINGTON, 
Clerk  of  the  Diitrici  of  New-Jergey, 


f' 


PREFACE. 


About  two  years  since,  the  writer  of  this  Httle  tract 
had  his  attention  called  by  circumstances  of  pecu- 
liar interest  to  the  subject  of  baptism.  Doubts 
would  occasionally  arise  in  his  mind  in  relation  to 
one  and  another  point  connected  with  this  sub- 
ject, which,  together  with  his  duties  as  a  minister, 
frequently  called  upon  to  administer  baptism  to  in- 
fants, laid  him  under  strong  obligations  to  examine 
the  whole  subject  anew.  He  consulted  every  au- 
thor, both  poedobaptist  and  antipccdobaptist,  to 
whose  works  he  could  obtain  access.  He  believes 
that  truth  was  the  obje.ct  at  which  he  aimed.  He 
entered  on  the  investigation,  determined  to  search 
for  the  truth,  to  embrace  it  on  whicli  side  soever  he 


PREFACE. 


should  find  it ;  and  when  once  satisfied  that  he 
had  found  it,  openly  to  profess  it ;  even  though  it 
should  be  by  offering  himself  as  a  candidate  for 
immersion  among  his  Baptist  brethren.  The  re- 
sult of  his  research,  is  a  complete  removal  of  his 
doubts,  and  a  firmer  conviction  than  ever,  that  In- 
fant Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  God — pregnant 
with  blessings,  to  the  church,  and  to  the  world.  He 
is,  however,  well  aware  of  the  influence  which 
preconceived  opinions  will  be  supposed  to  have 
exerted  on  the  result  of  his  inquiries  ;  and  of  the 
abatement  with  which,  on  that  account,  his  reason- 
ings will  be  received.  When  his  mind  was  satified 
on  the  subject,  he  expressed  his  views  to  the  people 
of  his  charge  in  a  short  series  of  sermons.  These 
were  shown  to  some  of  his  brethren,  in  whose 
judgment  and  candour  he  places  confidence.  It 
was  thought  that  their  circulation  might  promote  the 
cause  of  truth,  especially  in  the  region  of  country 
where  the  writer  is  best  knov^^n.  Accordingly,  at 
the  suggestion  of  a  much-esteemed  brother  in  the 
ministry,  the  sermons  were  laid  aside,  and  this  trea- 
tise was  written,  embracing  the  same  train  of  rea- 
soning, and  embodying  a  few  brief  remarks  on  the 
mode  of  baptism,  which  had  not  been  touched  on 


TRETAClt.  r 

in  the  sermons.  It  is  only  justice  to  remark,  that 
from  the  perusal  of  the  late  Dr.  John  Mason's 
Strictures  on  "  the  Church  of  God,  '—of  Dr. Wood's 
Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism — of  Letters  on  Infant 
Baptism,  by  Dr.  Ralston,  of  Williamsport,  Wash- 
ington county,  Pennsylvania,  first  published  in  the 
Christian  Advocate — and  of  Dr.  Worcester,  on  In- 
fant Baptism,  he  has  obtained  several  valuable  hints. 
Nor  has  he  failed  to  consult  on  the  Baptist  side  of 
the  question.  Dr.  Ryland's  Sermon — Mr.  Booth's 
Pcedobaptism  Examined — Gibb's  Defence  of  the 
Baptists — Frey's  Essays  on  Baptism — Letters  of 
David  and  John — Jones'  Church  History — and  se- 
veral other  writers.  Defects,  perhaps  glaring  de- 
fecls,  this  treatise  ,may  contain :  an  honest  exposi- 
tion of  the  reasons  that  weigh  in  his  own  mind,  the 
writer  is  sure  it  presents. 

Believing  that  it  meets  the  wants  of  this  region 
of  country  more  nearly  than  any  thing  he  has  yet 
found,  the  writer  commits  this  little  treatise  to  the 
press  with  fervent  prayers  for  the  blessing  of  the 
church's  glorious  Head  to  accompany  it  ;  and  in 
so  doing,  he  offers  it  to  the  people  of  his  charge,  and 
to  the  Session  of  the  church  he  serves,  with  pecu- 
liar interest,  as  a  token  of  his  earnest  desire  that 
1* 


VI  PREFACE. 

they  may  be  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  faith,  and 
that  their  children  after  them  may  prize  the  privi- 
leges of  that  covenant,  the  apphcation  of  whose 
seal  in  baptism  brings  them  also  w^ithin  the  purview 
of  its  promise,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee." 

WM.  T.  HAMILTON. 

Newark,  January  19j  133 1> 


ON  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


A  BRIEF  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURAL  WARRANT  FOR  THE 
PRACTICE  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


TfiE  great  body  of  Christians  in  our  day  believe 
that  it  is  right  to  baptize  infants  ;  and  they  act  accord- 
ingly. One  denomination,  justly  esteemed  for  their 
evangelical  spirit,  and  their  zealous  labours  in  the  field 
of  missionary  o{>erations,  condemn  this  practice  :  yet 
both  profess  to  be  guided  by  the  scriptures  alone.  It 
becomes  then  an  object  deeply  interesting  to  a  serious 
mind,  to  ascertain  where  the  truth  lies  in  relation  to 
this  long  contested  subject.  The  design  of  the  fol- 
lowing pages  is  to  furnish  a  plain  statement  of  the  rea- 
sons which  satisfy  the  minds  of  very  many,  that  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  no  device  of  man,  no  unmeaning 
rehc  of  popish  superstition,  but  a  scriptural  and  most 
important  practice.  Before  entering  on  the  more  im- 
mediate consideration  of  this  subject,  it  will  be  neces, 
sary  to  offer  some  preliminary  remarks. 

It  cannot  fail  to  have  struck  every  one  at  all  conver. 


8  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

sant  with  the  writings  of  those  who  deny  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism,  that  they  commonly  adduce  a  variety 
of  directions  and  examples  from  Scripture,  which  teach 
that  all  who  believe  in  Christ  are  entitled  to  baptism  ; 
and  then,  having  made  out  satisfactorily,  that  believers' 
baptism  is  scriptural,  they  set  it  down  as  an  argument 
in  their  favour  and  against  us. — This  does  at  least 
carry  the  appearance  of  being  disingenuous.  The 
evidence  deduced  from  Scripture,  in  support  of  adult 
baptism,  or  rather  believers'  baptism,  is  common  pro- 
perty. We  value  it  as  highly,  and  act  on  it  as,  con- 
stantly, as  do  our  anti-poedobaptist  brethren  ;  never 
refusing  baptism  to  an  adult  who  makes  a  credible 
profession  of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  never 
baptizing  any  adults  who  do  not  make  such  profession. 
But  all  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  infant  baptism,  and 
should  be  left  wholly  out  of  view  in  this  discussion  ; 
unless  it  can  be  shown,  that  because  certain  persons 
have  a  right  to  an  ordinance,  therefore  no  others  have. 
What  relates  to  believers,  and  them  alone,  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  question  of  infant  baptism.  The  simple 
point  of  inquiry  should  be,  What  grounds  do  the  scrip- 
tures furnish  us  to  conclude  that  infants  may  or  may 
not  be  baptized  ?  and  if  five  hundred  precepts  and  as 
many  examples  could  be  gathered  from  the  bible, 
which,  on  examination,  are  found  to  relate  only  to  adults 
or  to  believers,  they  do  not  touch  the  question  ;  any 
more  than  do  the  precepts  against  murder  and  adulte- 
ry ;  and  should  be  equally  passed  over  in  this  inquiry. 
What,  then,  is  the  proper  kind  of  evidence  admissible 
in  this  case  1  It  is  indeed  greatly  to  be  desired  that  the 
decision  of  this  preliminary  question  were  amicably 


INFANT   HAPTISM.  D 

agreed  on  by  both  parties.  Till  this  is  done,  the  dis- 
pute  can  never  be  brought  to  a  close.  While  one  party 
insist  upon  one  kind  of  evidence,  which  is  not  to  be 
found,  and  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  could  not 
be  looked  for,  and  refuse  peremptorily  to  listen  to  any 
arguments  drawn  from  other  sources  ;  unanimity  of 
sentiment  is  impossible,  and  the  dispute  can  never 
cease.  The  advocates  of  infant  baptism  cheerfully 
admit  that  the  Scriptures  furnishes  no  express  com- 
mand,  nor  any  plain  and  undeniable  example  of  the 
baptism  of  infants.  But  while  making  this  admission, 
we  contend  that  the  examples  of  household  baptism, 
(though  it  is  not  expressly  said  of  any  one  of  those 
iiouseholds,  that  it  contained  young  infants,)  are  yet 
directly  favourable  to  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  ; 
the  probability  being  stronger  that  they  did  contain  in- 
tants  than  that  they  did  not ;  while  the  case  of  the 
jailer's  household,  furnishes  no  light  ground  for  the 
baptism  of  some,  on  a  profession  of  the  faith  of  others, 
not  their  own.  At  the  same  time  we  contend,  that  an 
express  command  for  the  baptism  of  infants  was  un- 
necessary, since  they  had  for  ages  been  received  into 
the  Jewish  church  by  circumcision.  When,  under  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation  a  gentile,  not  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  forsook  his  idols,  and  joined  himself  to 
the  people  of  God,  he  was  circumcised,  and  his  chil- 
dren  with  him,  on  the  strength  of  his  profession  to 
serve  God.  Suppose  then  that  circumcision  had  been 
continued,  and  baptism  had  not  been  appointed,  but 
that  the  commission  had  been — "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  teach  all  nations,  circumcising  them  in  the 
name,  &c."  who  can  doubt  that  the  Apostles  would 


10  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

have  understood  their  commission  to  require  the  cir- 
cumcision of  the  infants  of  their  converts,  as  well  as  of 
the  converts  themselves  ?  To  Jews,  accustomed  to 
regard  the  infants  of  those  who  avouched  Jehovah  to  be 
their  God,  as  the  proper  subjects  of  circumcision,  no 
repetition  of  the  command  to  circumcise  infants  was 
needed  :  if  infants  were  not  to  be  circumcised,  they 
would  look  for  an  express  prohibition  in  the  case.  In 
like  manner,  when  baptize  was  the  command,  instead 
of  circumcise,  it  is  inevitable,  that  without  an  express 
prohibition  in  relation  to  infants,  they  must  have  re- 
garded the  commission  as  requiring  them  to  baptize 
infants  as  well  as  adults  :  and  with  this,  their  baptizing 
whole  households,  on  the  conversion  of  the  head  of  the 
family,  and  recording  it  in  the  history  of  their  proceed- 
ings, without  any  mark  of  peculiarity  in  the  case,  well 
comports  ;  while,  if  the  right  of  infants  to  this  ordi» 
nance  had  been  withheld,  it  is  impossible  that  Jewish 
Apostles,  and  Jewish  historians,  should  not  have  been 
more  careful  to  guard  against  a  misconstruction  of  their 
conduct  in  the  case. 

It  is  admitted  that  baptism  is  a  positive  ordinance, 
not  a  moral  precept :  that  independently  of  the  posi- 
tive appointment  of  God  to  baptize,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  nature  of  things,  (so  far  as  we  can  discover)  that 
renders  baptism  obhgatory  :  and  consequently,  that  our 
warrant  must  be  found  only  in  the  word  of  God.  We 
acknowledge  that  the  obligation  to  baptize  rests  solely 
on  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  head  of 
the  church  ;  that  the  law  of  the  institution  is  the  only 
rule  of  obedience  ;  so  that  we  may  neither  add  to,  nor 
take  away  from,  that  law  :   and  we  conceive  it  but  rea- 


tNFANT  BAPTlStf.  H 

sonable  to  expect  that  that  law  will  be  found  so  plain, 
that  on  a  diligent   and    impartial  consideration  of  it, 
(judging  of  its  meaning  as  we  suppose  the  apostles,  to 
whom  as  Jews  it  was  first  addressed,  must  have  under- 
stood  it,)  it  will  be  found  sufficient  to  guide  us  safely. 
But  what  then  ?     Does  all  this  prove    that   the  mere 
words  uttered  by  our  Lord  at  the  time  of  his  delivering 
the  commission  to  his  disciples,   "  Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  &c.  are  the 
only  part  of  scripture  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
law  ?     It  proves  nothing  more  than  that  the  authority 
of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  duty  in  baptism,  and 
that  from  the  sacred  scriptures — not  from  mere  tradi- 
tion,  or  the  opinions  of  men,  or  our  ideas  of  expedien- 
cy— we  must  gather  direction  : — but  it  does  not  show- 
that  by  the  mere  words  of  the  institution,  and  by  scrip- 
tural examples  alone,  we  are  to  be  guided,  to  the  ex- 
elusion  of  inferential  reasoning  from  other  parts  of  the 
word  of  God.     The  whole  word  of  God  is  the  law  of 
his  institutions,  and  we  are  bound  to  collect  from  it  all 
the    light  we  can  to  explain  their  nature  and  design. 
No  man  has  a  right,  when  inquiring  into  an  appoint* 
ment  of  God,  or  an  ordinance  of  his  church,  to  say 
that  the  Old  Testament,  or  any  other  part  of  his  word, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject,   and  must  be  laid 
wholly  aside  in  treating  of  it.     If  the  words  of  insti- 
tution  are  the  only  law  of  a  positive  ordinance,  then 
the  seventh  day,   and  not  the  first  of  the  week,  must 
still  be  observed  as  a  sabbath  :  or  rather,  as.no  express 
command  for  sabbatic  observance  is  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  the  christian  church  has  no  sabbath  at  all ; 
and  some  baptists  are  consistent  enough  to  maintain 


12  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

this.  Then  too,  guided  only  by  the  law  of  the  institu. 
lion  of  the  Lord's  supper,  thus  understood,  no  woman, 
however  pious,  must  sit  down  at  the  Lord's  table  ;  as 
will  be  shown  more  at  large  hereafter.  It  is  by  com- 
paring scripture  with  scripture,  that  we  learn  the  mean- 
ing of  any  one  passage,  and  the  true  design  of  God's 
ordinances.  Whatever  can  be  thus  lawfully  inferred, 
is  as  much  a  part  of  divine  revelation,  as  if  stated  in  so 
many  words  in  fifty  different  passages  of  scripture. 
And  on  every  subject  but  baptism,  baptists  themselves 
reason  and  infer  just  as  we  do  ;  else  would  they  never 
admit  a  female  to  communion  in  their  churches,  nor 
observe  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  holy  sabbath. 

These  remarks  will  prepare  the  reader  to  appreciate 
the  course  of  argument  pursued  in  this  treatise.  We 
contend,  that  as  Jews,  accustomed  to  the  membership 
of  infants  in  the  church  of  God  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  the  apostles  must  have  considered 
themselves  bound  to  admit  the  infants  of  believers  into 
the  gospel  church  by  baptism,  just  as  of  old  they  were 
admitted  by  circumcision, — because  no  direction  to 
the  contrary  was  given  by  our  Lord.  The  right  of  in- 
fants to  admission  to  the  church  by  baptism,  rests,  then, 
on  the  truth  of  these  few  propositions  : 

1st.  Before  the  advent  of  our  Lord,  God  had  a  true 
church  on  earth  ;  and  for  many  ages,  that  church  had 
subsisted  under  a  regular  organization  provided  in  the 
Abrahamic  covenant. 

2nd.  The  Abrahamic  covenant  is  still  in  force,  and 
consequently,  the  Christian  church  is  but  a  continu- 
ance  of  the  Jev/ish. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  13 

3d.  Infant  membership  in  the  church,  once  estab- 
lished of  God,  never  revoked,  still  remains. 

4th.  Under  the  gospel  dispensation,  baptism  is  sub- 
stituted  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  as  the  seal  of 
God's  covenant. 

From  all  which,  once  established,  it  will  follow,  that 
infant  baptism  is  a  scriptural  practice,to  avail  ourselves 
of  it  for  our  children,  at  once  a  duty  and  a  privilege  : 
?md  with  this  conclusion,  the  language  and  the  conduct 
of  Christ  and  of  his  Apostles,  and  the  testimony  of 
church  history,  will  be  found  on  examination,  exactly 
to  accord  ;  while  all  the  objections  that  can  be  urged, 
will  be  seen  to  be  void  of  force. 

It  is  then  asserted  : — 1st.  God  had  a  true  church  on 
earth  before  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which 
had  for  many  ages  enjoyed  a  regular  organization 
under  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

By  a  church  is  meant,  not  the  company  of  real 
saints  alone  ;  these  never  will  be  beheld  together,  with- 
out an  admixture  of  ungodly  men,  till  the  exhibition 
made  at  the  last  day  ;  but  a  church  is  made  up  o{  those 
who  take  God's  revealed  loiU  as  their  guide,  and  ostensihlu 
render  him  the  worship  he  has  therein  'prescribed.^  In  the 


*  Or  it  is  the  company  of  credible  professors  of  the  tnie  re- 
ligion : — "J'he  mention  of  children  is  designedly  omitted  here, 
just  as  we  omit  children  when  describing  any  other  public  soci- 
ety, or  a  nation  : — It  might  have  been  said — a  church  consists  of 
those  who  professedly  render  to  God  the  icorship  he  requires,  to- 
gether with  the  children  who  have  been  consecrated  to  God  after 
the  manner  he  ha*  prescribed : — but  then   this  definition   might 

2 


14  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

family  of  Adam  God  established  a  church  ;  he  gave* 
them  promises,  and  appointed  the  way  in  which  he 
would  be  worshipped.  This  we  infer  from  the  fact 
that  worship  was  offered,  probably  by  the  first  pair, 
whose  clothing  of  skins  was  most  likely  obtained  from 
animals  slain  in  sacrifice.  Gen.  iii.  21,  since  no  grant 
of  animal  food  is  recorded  as  having  been  made  till 
after  the  deluge.  It  is  certain  that  worship  was  at- 
tempted both  by  Cain  and  Abel :  now  an  act  of  wor- 
ship performed  without  authority  from   God,  is  what 


possibly  exclude  all  who  lived  before  Abraham,  since  we  have  no 
certain  evidence  that  their  children  were  then  publicly  dedicated 
to  God  in  any  specific  manner  ;  although  the  writer  believes  it 
probable,  that  then  already,  such  infant  consecration  was  made, 
and  made,  most  likely,  in  the  act  of  taking  the  child  to  attend, 
for  the  first  time,  on  a  solemn  sacrifice. 

A  definition  more  satisfactory  to  some  would  be,  "  the  visi- 
ble church  consists  of  the  credible  professors  of  the  true  religion,  to- 
gether with  their  children.''''  The  same  uncertainty  as  to  the  ante 
Abrahamic  church  would  accompany  this  definition  that  attends 
the  precdeing,  since,  though  it  is  probable,  that  a  provision  for  the 
seed  of  God's  people,  made  in  all  subsequent  ages,  was  not  then 
unknown,  yet  we  have  no  direct  evidence  of  that  provision  prior 
to  the  time  of  Abraham.  Moreover,  by  defining  the  church  to 
be  "  credible  professors  of  the  true  religion  and  their  children," 
it  seems  to  be  conceded,  that  the  children  of  such  professors  are 
from  their  birth,  members  of  the  visible  church, and  that  baptism 
is  only  a  public  acknowledgment  of  that  membership  ;  while  in 
the  writer's  view,  such  children  have  from  their  birth  a  right  only 
to  admission  ;  but  they  do  not  actually  become  members  until 
they  receive  baptism,  the  initiary  ordinance  of  the  church  :  and 
yet  perhaps,  these  two  difficulties  are  of  little  weight,  and  if  so, 
this  definition  is  quite  admissible. 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


15 


the  scriptures  denominate  wUl  toorship,  which  God  will 
not  accept.  Abel's  offering  of  a  bloody  sacrifice, 
presented  by  faith,  Heb.  xi.  4,  was  accepted  of  God. 
Gen.  iv.  4,  Cain's  offering  of  the  fruits  of  the  ground 
was  rejected,  v.  5 ;  and  he  was  reminded  of  beasts 
for  a  sin-offering,  crouching  at  his  very  door,  Gen.  iv. 
7.  (Such  appears  to  be  the  true  import  of  the  expres- 
sion. If  thou  doest  not  well — sin  lieth  at  the  door: 
i.  e.  a  sin-offering — an  animal  proper  to  be  employed 
as  such,  lies'  crouching  near  thy  door.  Gen.  iv.  7.) 
Obviously  then,  the  worship  of  God  by  the  sacrifice  of 
slaughtered  animals,  and  in  that  way  alone,  had  been 
divinely  appointed:  and  if  so,  all  who  worshipped 
God  in  that  manner  during  the  antediluvian  and  patri- 
archal ages,  prior  to  the  calling  of  Abraham,  were  the 
church  of  God.  To  this,  confirmation  is  lent  by  what 
is  recorded  Gen.  iv.  26,  and  vi.  2.  At  length,  univer- 
sal' corruption  spread  over  the  whole  world,  and  the 
deluge  was  sent  to  sweep  away  the  impious  race,  leav- 
ing Noah  and  his  family  alone  to  continue  the  church, 
and  hand  down  true  religion. 

But  inasmuch  as,  after  the  flood,  wickedness  again 
increased  with  the  multiplication  of  mankind,  and 
threatened  the  utter  extinction  of  genuine  religion, 
God  was  pleased  to  call  Abraham  out  of  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees,  with  designs  the  most  gracious.  In  Gen. 
xii.  1 — 3,  we  have  an  account  of  the  call  of  Abraham 
and  the  communication  then  made  to  him,  in  which  by 
promise,  (not  by  covenant*)    he  was   informed  of  all 


*  The  writer  is  aware  that  the  term  covenant  is  used  in  the 


16  iNFAjrr  baptism:.. 

those  blessings  to  himself  personally,  to  his  lineal  de- 
scendants, and  to  all  the  families  of  the  earth  through 


scriptures  with  some  latitude  of  meaning,  sometimes  denoting 
an  agreement  between  two  parties,  Gen.  xxi.  20 — 32.  Job  ix. 
15 — 24.  Sometimes  a  kind  of  gracious  compact  into  which  God 
enters  with  men, promising  mercies  on  his  part,  and  requiring  the 
performance  of  certain  conditions  on  theirs,  as  Gen.  xv.  8 — 18, 
Exod.  xxiv.  1 — 8.  Sometimes  it  denotes  simply  God's  purpose 
or  appointment,  without  any  stipulation,  Gen.  ix.  10,  11.  Jer. 
xxxiii.  20,  25.  Sometimes  an  absolute  promise  made  by  God  to 
his  people,  Isa.  lix.  21.     Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 35.     Hos.  ii.  18. 

In  promising  to  Noah  that  no  second  flood  should  happen, 
God  appointed  the  bow  as  a  token  of  his  faithfulness,  and  this 
promise  is  called  God's  covenant.  Gen.  ix.  8—19.  The  rainbow 
might  be  called  the  seal  of  that  covenant — a  seal  which  God 
himself  affixed,  no  conditions  being  exacted  of  men. 

In  the  covenants  with  Abraham,  in  both  cases,  God  promised 
blessings  to  Abraham,  and  required  conditions  to  be  performed  by 
Abraham  ;  in  the  one  case  slaughtering  animals  in  a  certain  man- 
ner; Gen.  xv.  8 — 18;  in  the  other,  circumcising  himself  and  his 
ofispring.  Gen.  xvii.  9 — 14  :  this  circumcision  was  the  seal  of  this 
covenant ;-— on  God's  part  that  he  accepted /ai7/i  as  a  substitute 
for  perfect  righteousness,  and  would  send  blessings  upon  his  cir- 
cumcised seed — on  Abraham's, that  he  did  believe  God, and  would 
await  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise :  hence  to  circumcise  was  to 
keep  God's  covenant.  Gen.  xvii.  10. 

Now  as  every  covenant  contained  a  promise,  the  blessing  i« 
often  referred  to  under  the  name  of  the  promise,  not  being  called 
a  covenant,  Gal.  iii.  14 — 18.  And  in  Paul's  writings  the  blessings 
secured  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  in  this  gracious  covenant  are 
frequently  spoken  of  as  the  promise  to  Abraham,  probably  be- 
cause all  that  was  afterwards  confirmed  in  the  two  covenants 
was  expressed  in  the  general  promise  given  at  the  time  of  his  call 
out  of  Ur. 

I  have  made  a  distinction  between  the  promise  first  given  and 
the  covenants  afterwards  confirmed  -^  not  that  I  doubt  that  God'a 


INFANT  I.APTISM.  IT 

him,  which  were  afterwards  more  particularly  explain- 
€cl,  amplified,  and  confirmed  in  two  distincts  covenants. 

In  Gen.  XV.  we  have  an  account  of  God's  appearing 
to  Ahram  in  vision,  and  ratifying  a  covenant  with  him. 
Abram  offered  certain  animals,  according  to  the  direc- 
tions  given  him,  and  then  we  read,  "  In  that  same  day 
the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  saying,  Unto 
thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of 
Egypt  to  the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates,'''  v.  13. 
On  this  occasion,  the  first  part  of  the  promise  made  to 
Abram  at  the  time  of  his  call  when  in  Ur,  securing  to 
his  posterity  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan  and 
great  national  prosperity,  was  renewed  and  confirmed 
by  covenant.  This  promise  has  exclusive  respect  to 
temporal  favours,  and  being  now  "sealed  in  the  cove- 
nant," is  never  again  mentioned  by  itself. 

About  fourteen  or  fifteen  years  after  this  transaction 
(some  indeed  make  it  twenty. five  years)  God  appeared 
again  to  Abram,  and  made  another  covenant  with  him, 
as  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  1 — 14.  Lest  the  former  cove- 
nant should  appear  to  be  annulled  by  this — the  promise 
therein  made  to  Abraham's  descendants  is  recognised. 
But  still,  this  is  an  entirely  different  covenant,  and  rati- 
fied by  a  distinct  seal.  In  addition  to  the  temporal 
blessings  before  promised,  the  promise  is  now  given 
that  Abram  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations,  v.  4, 
in  token  of  which,  his  name  is  changed  to  Ahraham  : 

promises  and  even  his  commands  are  sometimes  called  covenants 
in  scripture  ;  but  because  there  was  an  obvious  difference  between 
the  simple  assurance  first  given  to  Abraham  in  Ur,  and  the  for- 
mal manner  in  which  the  two  covenants  were  afterwards  con- 
firmed. 

2* 


IS  INFANT  BAPTISM- 

and  then  is  superadded  that  most  gracious  promise;, 
^*  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  af  ten hee,''  y.l . 
This,  then,  was  not  a  mere  carnal  covenant,  securing 
only  temporal  blessings.  Those  who  would  so  repre- 
sent it,  not  only  degrade,  but  confound  it  with  the  pre- 
vious  covenant  recorded  in  Gen.  xv. 

Nor  is  this  covenant  the  same  as  the  covenant  of 
grace,*  i.  e.  it  does  not  convey  a  promise  of  salvation 

*  To  avoid  misapprehension,  I  would  state,  that  by  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  I  mean  that  transaction  which  takes  place  between 
God  and  an  individual  of  our  race,  in  which  personal  salvation  is 
secured  to  him,  as  distinguished  from  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion, ratified  between  God  the  Father  and  the  Son,  for  the  salva- 
tion of  all  the  elect.  When  a  sinner  repents  and  believes  on 
Christ,  he  consents  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  God  on  liis  part 
pardons  his  sins,  and  confers  on  him  a  title  to  eternal  life. 

la  my  view,  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  something  dif- 
ferent from  this  ;  when  God  proposes  a  covenant,  saying,  I  will 
be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  and  requires  from  man  a 
token  of  his  consent,  such  a  token  e.  g. — as  circumcision,  or 
baptism,  no  sooner  is  that  token  given  by  man  in  his  becoming 
circumcised  or  baptized,  than  all  that  is  covered  by  that  promise 
is  secured  to  him  ;  and  if  that  promise  include  saving  blessings, 
then  I  see  not  but  that  every  circumcised  person  must  have  been 
saved ;  and  then  also,  under  the  gospel,  every  baptized  peison  must 
be  sure  of  salvation  ;  a  doctrine  none  are  prepared  to  receive. 
And  in  this  sense  it  is  that  I  contend  this  ancient  covenant  was 
not  the  covenant  of  gi-ace.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  God  was 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  of  all  his  circumcised  seed,  equally  and 
alike  ;  a  sense  in  which  he  is  to  this  day  the  God  of  the  baptized 
seed  ;  not  for  salvation — (for  all  the  baptized  are  not  saved,)  but 
for  important  purposes,  as  developed  in  the  course  of  this  trea- 
tise ;  yet  inasmuch  as  circumcision  formerly,  (a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,)  and  baptism  now,  are  a  token  that  God  wilt 
account  fwth  for  righteousness,  when  a  man  believes  as  Abraham 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  19 

to  Abraham  and  the  seed  specified   in   this  covenant, 
nor  to  either  of  them.     Ot"  this  covenant  circmncision 
was  the  original  seal,  now  we  all  know  that  to  whom- 
soever any  covenant  or  contract  is  sealed,  that  seal 
absolutely  secures  to  him  the  full   benefit  of  all  the 
stipulations  contained  in  that  covenant.     If  then  this 
covenant  be  the  same  as  the  covenant  of  grace,  since 
circumcision  was  God's  seal,  not  man's,  then  every 
circumcised  person  must  have  been  infallibly  sure  of 
salvation  :  the  ancient  Jews  held  this  opinion,  but  the 
language  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  has  taught  us  dif- 
ferently.    Abraham  was   a  believer  long  before  this 
event,  and  as  such  was  justified,  for  he  had  believed 
God  (at  least  fourteen  years  before,)  and  his  faith  was 
then  counted  to  him  for  righteousness,  Gen.  xv.  6.  and 
circumcision  was  appointed  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  Xhe  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumciscd, 
( Rom.  iv.  1 1 ) ;  so  that  neither  the  salvation  of  Abraham, 
nor  of  any  of  his  seed,  was  determined  by  this  cove- 
nant. 

But  herein  God  brought  Abraham  and  all  his  seed, 
whether  natural  or  adopted,  (on  whom  the  seal  of 
circumcision  should  be  placed,)  into  a  new  and  pecu- 
liar relation,  so  as  to  be  his  God  and  their  God  in  their 
generations,  in  one  and  the  same  sense ;  they  were 
hereby  brought  into  a  more  immediate  relation  to  God, 
than  the  rest  of  mankind,  as  his  people. 


(lid,  he  then  becomes  a  son  of  Abraham  in  the  higher  and  spi- 
ritual  sense,  he  13  Christ's,  and  Abraham's  seed,  according  to  the 
promise,  in  its  large  and  saving  sense.  There  are  external  and 
aUo  internal  blessinga  covered  by  that  promise. 


\ 


20  INFANT  BAPTISSr. 

The  seed  to  whom  the  promise  was  given,  meant 
not  Abraham's  natural  descendants  as  such,  for  Ish« 
mael  and  Keturah's  children  were  expressly  excepted. 
In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,  Rom.  ix.  7.  Gen. 
xxi.  12.  nay  Esau,  Isaac's  son,  was  also  cut  off,  Rom. 
xiii.  Moreover,  provision  was  made  in  this  very  cove- 
nant, for  the  admission  of  others,  not  of  Abraham's 
descendants  :  Gen.  xvii.  10 — 12.  And  at  the  supple- 
ment added  to  this  covenant  at  Mount  Sinai  430  years 
after,  this  provision  for  the  admission  of  strangers  and 
their  offspring  among  the  people  of  God,  was  still 
kept  in  view. 

Besides,  Abraham  was  to  be  made  the  father  of 
many  nations :  this  cannot  respect  his  natural  descen- 
dants merely,  for  those  of  his  posterity  who  were  in- 
terested in  this  covenant  constituted  only  one  nation : 
the  promise  that  he  should  be  \he  father  of  many  na- 
tions, Gen.  xvii.  5.  is  obviously  equivalent  to  that  first 
made  to  him  when  called  out  of  Ur  :  in  thee  shall  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  he  blessed,  Gen.  xii.  3.  In  so 
wide  a  sense  did  Paul  understand  this  promise,  that  he 
tells  us,  Abraham  was  to  be  the  heir  of  the  world : 
Rom.  iv.  13.  Now  since  all  of  whom  Abraham  is 
counted  the  father  are  his  seed,  the  seed  to  whom  God 
promises  to  be  a  father  equally  as  to  Abraham,  must 
include  all  these  many  nations,  and  must  ultimately 
embrace  all  the  families  of  the  earth. 

Of  this  gracious  covenant  circumcision  was  the  seal : 
— showing,  that  as  Abraham  had  been  justified  by 
faith,  not  by  works,  so  every  one  that  believes  as 
Abraham  did,  shall  like  him  be  justified  by  faith.  And 
consequently,  to  every  one  who  walked  as  Abraham 


IHFANT  BAPTISM.  21 

did,  by  faith,  his  circumcision  was  thenceforth  a  pledge 
of  liis  own  personal  interest  in  the  same  righteousness 
by  which  Abraham  had  been  justified  : — and  lience 
the  apostle  tells  us  that  the  gospel  was  before  preached 
unto  Abj'oham,  Gal.  iii.  8.  because  it  was  foreseen  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  thrcugh faith :  and  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  which  is  the  very  marrow  of  the  gospel, 
— was  the  grand  doctrine  taught — and  the  chief  pri- 
vilege tendered,  in  the  covenant  ratified  w  ith  Abraham, 
and  signified  by  its  seal.  The  covenant  ratified  with 
Abraham  and  sealed  with  circumcision,  was,  therefore, 
evidently,  a  covenant  ecclesiastical ;  by  which  God 
appointed  Abraham  to  be  the  father  of  all  believers, 
i.  e.  the  head  and  representative  of  the  church  in 
all  succeeding  ages  ;  and  conferred  upon  his  family 
high  and  peculiar  privileges,  in  which  they  received 
a  more  complete  organization  than  had  before  been 
granted  to  God's  people  ;  marking  them  out  more  dis- 
tinctly as'  one  spiritual  society,  and  promising  to  per- 
petuate the  visible  church  in  that  family  by  lineal 
descent;  with  the  restriction  made  by  cutting  oflTIsh- 
mael,  Keturah's  children,  and  Esau  ;  and  the  admis- 
sion of  any  others  who  voluntarily  chose  the  God  of 
Abraham  as  their  God,  and  submitted  to  circumcision. 
To  them  and  to  their  seed  after  them  Jehovah  pro- 
mised  to  be  a  God,  in  which  promise  he  virtually 
engaged  to  furnish  them  with  every  needful  revelation 
of  his  will,  and  with  the  ordinances  of  his  worship, 
and  from  among  them,  chiefly,  to  take  the  election  of 
grace.  Accordingly  Paul  says — what  advantage  then 
hath  the  Jew,  and  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ^ 
Much  every  way,  chiefly  because  that  unto  them  itr€r$ 


22  INFANT  BAPTISM, 

committed  the  oracles  of  God :  Rom.  iii.  1,  2.  The 
Holy  Ghost  has  thus  decided  by  Paul,  that  the  most 
prominent  benefit  certainly  accruing  from  this  cove- 
nant, was,  that  it  marked  out  the  visible  church,  and 
ensured  to  them  the   means  of  grace.*     Accordingly 


*  Against  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  given  in  our  version 
— it  has  been  said,  the  true  sense  of  it  is  "  much  every  way — be- 
cause that  by  them  were  believed  the  oracles  of  God, — but  what  if 
some  did  not  believer"  and  that  though  Trtg-mu)  and  Trig-iviysii — are 
sometimes  rendered  committed,  entrusted,  ^c. — yet  the  antithesis 
with  ATrig-iu- — forbids  that  rendering  here.  This  criticism  appears 
to  me  incorrect ;  different  verbs  are  employed  in  the  different 
parts  of  this  antithesis  :  the  idea  seems  to  be,  that  the  Jews  en- 
joyed peculiar  advantages  in  the  possession  of  revealed  truth, — 
and  though  by  many  this  truth  was  disbelieved — yet  the  truth 
itself  remained  unimpaired  in  worth,  unshaken  in  stabihty,  suffi- 
cient to  render  wise  unto  salvation  its  possessors,  had  they  rightly 
improved  it.  An  idea  similar  to  that  expressed  by  the  psalmist 
cxlvii.  19.  He  hath  showed  his  word  unto  Jacob,  and  his  statutes  and 
judgments  unto  Israel ;  he  hath  not  dealt  so  with  any  nation.  The 
sense  given  by  our  translators  is  adopted  and  defended  by  Dod- 
dridge and  McKnight ; — Rosenmiiller  maintains  the  same  :  Etti?^ 
Binrnv  Ti{  Koyu  T8  6s5i,    Oracula  divina  concredita  sunt  iis  :— and  on 

the  next  verse  ^lydig Kx-raeyf^fru  :  Quid  enim  (inde  sequitur)  si 

quidam  non  habuerunt  fidem  (oraculis  divinis,)  num  istorum  per- 
fidia  fidelitatem  Dei  (in  servandis  promissis)  sustulerit  ? — Fateor, 
inquit  Apostolus,  non  digni  erant  Judcei  hoc  beneficio  ; — nam 
major  eorum  pars  semper  fuit  et  nunc  est  perfida,  denegans  Deo 
fidem  et  obsequium.  Sed  hoc  non  impedivit,  quo  minus  Deus 
staret  promissis.  Misit  Messiam  e  gente  Israeletica  oriundum,  et 
nunc  etiam  Judasi  fruuntur  hoc  commodo,  ut  ex  vaticiniis  V.  T. 
facilius  discere  possint  quam  Pagani — qualis  sit  Messias,  et  qua- 
lis  vera  religio.  Matt.  xv.  24. — Acts  xiii.  45. 

In  these  views  the  most  eminent  commentators  about  the  time 
pf  the  reformation,  and  the  most  respectable  versions  concur, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  'ZZ 

we  find  God  delighting  to  make  himself  known  as  the 
covenant  God  of  his  people,  and  of  their  children 
with  them,  since  he  styles  himself  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  rather  than  the  God  of  Enoch, 
Noah,  and  Job,  though  these  were  equally  good  and 
pious  men.     The  seal  of  this  ancient  covenant  formed 

Beza  remarks  on  this  passage,  "  Intellige  vero  sic  illis  commissa 
Dei  cloqiiia,  non  ut  alicnae  rei  dcpositum,  set  ut  proprium  ipso- 
rum  thesaurum  quo  utcrentur  et  fruerentur ;  unde  factum  ut  reli- 
quos  populos  ante  Christi  adveiitum  apostolus  ideam  a.  Baa  vocarit, 
Eph.  ii.  12.  Et  hue  respicit  nomen  t^^*  x3tTa9>;x«j  quo  utitur.  1 
Tim.  vi.  20." 

In  the  marginal  analysis  this  venerable  reformer  gives  of  tlie 
2d,  3d,  and  4th  verses,  he  expresses  more  distinctly  yet  the  views 
I  have  advanced  in  the  text,  as  conveyed  in  this  passage.  Pool, 
in  his  Synopsis,  after  citing  Grotius,  Hoc  Judaji  habent  procipuum 
quod  illis  in  custodiam  data  sunt  oracula,  &c.  thus  comments  on 
this  passage  :  Eximio  hoc  honore  eos  dignatus  est  Deus,  ut  as- 
sent Verbi  sui  dispensatores,  cusiodcs,  depositarii ;  idque  ad 
aliorum  usum  et  commodum,  ut  solent  depositarii.  Sic  Evan- 
geliumapud  Paulum  et  Petrum  depositum  erat  (Gal.  ii.  7.)  ad 
usum  gentium,  etJudajorum.  See  also,  1  Tim.  i.  11,  "the  glorious 
gospel  of  the  blessed  God  wliich  was  committed  to  my  trust," 
(  £T/rsy9w  e>a.  In  both  these  passages  the  same  word  is  used  as 
in  Rom.  iii.  2,  and  it  is  translated  in  the  same  manner. 

The  same  view  of  Rom.  iii.  2,  3,  is  taken  by  Jaspis,  in  his  La- 
tin version-of  the  New  Testament  epistles :  his  version  reads, 
"  Quorsum  igitur  juvat  esse  natione  Judteus,  aut  quis  redit  ex 
circumcisionc  fructus  ?  Multus  sane  ;  maxime  quod  Judieis  doc- 
trina  divma  concredita  est.  Qnid  eniin  inde  efficitur,  si  quidam 
perfide  egerunt  ?"  &c.  And  in  a  note,  he  remarks — "  Hanc  per- 
lidiam  declararunt  vita  scelesta,  inclinando  ad  idolatriam,  repudi- 
ando,  vexando  et  interficiendo  prophetas.  Quae  vero  non  obstant, 
ut  Deus  s^cf  promi^^^  ac  totam  tueatur  gentem."  See  the  edi- 
tion of  his  "  Versio  Latina,"  &c.  printed  at  Leipsic,  1793,  yoI.  I. 
p.  9.    This  view  of  Rom.  iii.  2,  is  adopted  also  by  Whitby. 


24  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

for  2000  years  a  line  of  separation,  distinguishing  the 
visible  church  from  the  world  ;  within  which  alone  the 
light  of  heaven  was  made  to  pour  down  in  repeated 
revelations,  while  the  world  around  lay  shrouded  in 
midnight  darkness  ;  where  alone  the  voice  of  prophecy 
was  heard — the  temple  worship  was  maintained ;  where 
was  found  the  peculiar  people — the  holy  nation — the 
royal  priesthood — whose  God  was  the  living  Jehovah  ; 
and  among  whom,  perhaps  exclusively,  was  sent  down, 
for  so  long  a  period,  God's  renovating  grace : — where 
alone  true  piety  was  found — true  saints  appeared,  such 
as  Samuel,  and  David,  and  Daniel,  and  thousands 
among  the  mass  of  the  circumcised  : — Hence  God 
says  to  circumcised  Israelites — you  only  have  I  known 
of  all  the  families  of  the  earth,  Amos  iii.  2.  Hence  by 
Stephen,  the  Holy  Ghost  speaks  of  the  church  in  the 
wilderness,  Acts  vii.  38.  and  hence  Paul  says  of  the 
circumcised  seed  of  Abraham,  Rom.  ix.  4.  to  whom 
pertaineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants , 
and  the  giving  of  the  laze,  arid  the  service  of  God  and 
the  promises.  Here  the  apostle  states  the  privileges 
consequent  on  their  interest  in  this  covenant,  as  in- 
cluding the  revelation  of  God's  will — the  enjoyment 
of  his  appointed  worship,  the  means  of  grace,  and 
the  advantages  of  adoption,  i.  e.  they  were  all  regard- 
ed as  God's  visible  people,  and  from  among  them,  al- 
most exclusively,  he  selected  the  heirs  of  life.  The 
Jews  then,  marked  with  circumcision,  the  seal  of  this 
covenant,  enjoying  the  revelation  and  ordinances  of 
God,  and  spoken  of  in  scripture  as  the  king's  daughter, 
to  whom  Jehovahwas  married,  Jer.  iii.  14. — Isa.  liv.  5. 
were  a  true  church.     Every  circumcised  person  was 


INFANT  HAPTISM.  25 

bound  to  keep  God's  law,  (Jal.  v.  3.  and  to  be  holy  ; 
his  attending  the  temple  worship,  and  eating  of  the 
passover,  was  equivalent  to  a  public  profession  of  re- 
ligion. And  accordingly  we  find  that  when  Jews  prov- 
ed  disobedient  and  wicked,  God  reproached  them  by 
his  prophets  as  covenant  breakers  and  hypocrites, 
(Hos.  xvi.  6.  9.  17.— Ps.  Ixxviii.  34—37.)  The  fact 
then  that  all  Jews  were  not  truly  pious,  no  more  proves 
that  the  circumcised,  as  a  body,  were  not  the  true 
church  of  God,  than  the  fact  that  all  communicants  at 
the  Lord's  table  now  are  not  real  christians — proves 
that  the  body  of  such  communicants,  are  not  God's 
visible  church.  Every  Jew,  in  coming  forwards  to  eat 
the  passover,  publicly  avouched  Jehovah  to  be  his 
God,  and  promised  to  observe  his  statutes ;  he  put  his 
own  seal  to  God's  covenant ;  and  a  christian  in  coming 
forwards  to  the  Lord's  table,  does  just  the  same  thing. 
Accordingly  we  find,  that  God  required  true  holiness- 
of  every  Israelite — "  Be  ye  holy  for  I  am  holy  !"  and 
he  requires  no  more  of  christians  now,  Lev.  xi.  44,  46. 
When  they  rendered  a  heartless  service,  God  upbraids 
them  as  hypocrites.  "  Your  new  moons  and  sabbaths, 
your  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with.  It  is 
iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meeting.  When  ye  spread 
forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you ;  when 
ye  make  many  prayers,  1  will  not  hear  !"  Isa.  i.  13.  15. 
All  which  shows  that  God  required  holiness  of  heart, 
and  spiritual  worship,  of  every  Israelite  ;  that  they  who 
rendered  it  not  were  hypocrites,  false  to  their  cove, 
nant  engagements.  From  which  it  follows  that  the 
covenant  was  spiritual,  in  its  obligations  and  its  pro- 
mises,  and  consequently,  that  the  Jewish  church,  for 
3 


26  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

whose  continuance  and  more  regular  organization 
provision  was  made  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  was 
the  true  church  of  God,  just  as  the  gospel  church  now 
is.  All  this  is  rendered  yet  further  apparent  from  the 
variety  of  metaphors  employed  by  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles,  to  show  the  identity  of  the  Christian  and 
Jewish  churches  ;  such  as  the  kingdom  taken  from 
one  people  and  given  to  another,  Matt.  xxi.  43 ;  the 
vineyard  taken  from  one  set  of  husbandmen  and  let 
out  to  another,  v.  41 ;  the  olive  tree,  from  which  some 
branches  were  cut  out  and  into  which  others  are 
grafted,  leaving  the  tree  itself  unchanged  and  the 
same,  Rom.  xi.  16 — 24  ;  as  will  afterwards  more  fully 
appear.  It  is  not  more  evident,  then,  that  the  gospel 
church  is  a  true  church  of  God,  than  it  is  that  the 
Jewish  church,  blessed  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
and  marked  with  the  seal  of  circumcision,  was  the 
true  church  of  God. 

Having  thus  shown  that  before  the  time  of  our  Lord 
a  true  church  was  in  existence  among  the  Jews,deriv. 
ing  vast  benefits  from  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  I  pro- 
ceed to  the  second  proposition — The  christian  church 
is  hut  a  continuation  of  the  Jewish,  under  the  same  Abra- 
hamic covenant  still  in  full  force. 

The  identity  of  the  church  under  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  dispensations  will  appear  if  we  consider, 

1st.  The  covenant  with  Abraham,  in  which  the  Jewish 
church  found  provision  for  its  continuance  and  regular 
organization,  has  never  been  revoked. 

In  no  part  of  God's  word  can  a  single  passagfe  be 
found  to  prove  that  God  has  set  aside  this  ancient  co- 
venant.    On  the  contrary,  it  is  spoken  of  and  reasoned 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  27 

from  in  various  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  as  un- 
doubtedly continuing  in  force.  The  giving  of  the  ce- 
remonial  law  at  Mount  Sinai  did  not  repeal  this  cove- 
nant;  for  Paul  tells  the  Galatians,  iii.  17,  "the  law 
given  by  Moses  cannot  disannul"  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  before  it,  and  which  he  declares  was  confirmed 
of  God  in  Christ.  Nay  he  asserts  that  this  law  was 
added  to  further  the  attainment  of  things  contemplated 
in  that  covenant.  "  The  law  was  added  because  of 
transgression,  till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the 
promise  was  made,"  v.  19.  Nothing  can  be  plainer 
than  this  testimony  :  Christ  is  the  head  of  all  those 
who  by  faith  become  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham, 
Gal.  iii.  29;  and  till  he  should  come,  the  law  was  added 
to  the  original  covenant,  to  mark  more  distinctly  the 
people  from  whom  he  should  spring.  He  being  come, 
the  necessity  for  that  distinction  is  done  away,  and 
Gentiles  are  admitted  to  membership  in  the  visible 
church  ;  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  may  come  on  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  14  :  i.  e.  that 
Gentiles  may  partake  of  those  spiritual  blessings  se- 
cured to  all  interested  in  that  covenant,  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  the  seal.  For  circumcision  was  no 
appendage  to  the  Mosaic  law,  but  to  the  Abrahamic 
covenant — "  circumcision  is  not  of  Moses,  but  of  the 
fathers,^^  John  vii.  22 — the  patriarchs.  The  com- 
mencement of  the  Mosaic  economy  did  not  annul  the 
Abrahamic  covenant ;  how  then  can  its  close  affect  it  ? 
Nay,  since  the  Mosaic  law,  with  its  solemn  rites  and 
splendid  ritual,  was  an  addition  subsequently  made  to 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  for  the  express  purpose  of  the 


28  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

better  securing  one  particular  object  proposed  in  that 
covenant,  (viz.  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  head  of  the 
spiritual  seed,  that  through  him  Gentiles  might  have 
access  to  the  privileges  of  this  covenant,  be  counted  as 
the  seed,  and  partake  of  the  promise,)  the  termination 
of  that  law,  and  the  abolition  of  its  rites,  instead  of 
annulling  that  ancient  covenant,  furnish  fresh  evidence 
of  its  stability  and  its  gracious  design. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  prophets  foretold  the  establish- 
ment of  a  new  covenant,  under  the  gospel,  and  the 
abrogation  of  the  old  one  under  which  the  Jews  were  ; 
and  this  old  one,  it  is  said,  could  only  be  the  Abraha- 
mic  covenant,  which  must  consequently  have  ceased, 
see  Jer.  xxxi.  32.  "  Behold  the  day  cometh,  saiili  tJie 
Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of 
Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah ;  not  according  to 
ike  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day 
that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  Egypt, 
which  my  covenant  they  brake,"  and  we  are  then  refer- 
red  to  Heb.  viii.  where  the  apostle  quotes  this  pas- 
sage,  and  argues  from  it. 

It  is  true  the  apostle  does  from  this  passage  ar- 
gue the  abolition  of  a  covenant,  which  he  tells  us 
is  now  made  old  and  ready  to  vanish  away.  But 
what  is  that  old  covenant,  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks?  Not  the  Abrahamic  covenant  assuredly! 
the  prophet  furnishes  unequivocal  proof  of  this.  It 
was  the  covevant  made  with  Israel  when  God  took 
them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  Egypt.  It  was  a 
covenant  that  had  ordinances  of  divine  service,  a 
wordly  sanctuary,  a  tabernacle,  altars,  tables,  candle- 
sticks, priests,  &c.  as  the  apostle  shows  in  the  eighth 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


20 


and  ninth  chapters  of  Hebrews.  These  things  appc3r. 
tain  to  the  covenant  established  with  Israel  at  Mount 
Sinai ;  to  the  ceremonial  law,  given  by  Moses  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  after  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham  ;  but  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  ancient 
Abrahamic  covenant,  except  as  supplements  added  for 
a  time  ;  they  expired  therefore  by  their  own  limitation, 
when  the  seed  should  come  ;  leaving,  at  their  abolition, 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  to  which  they  had  been  sub- 
sidiary,  unrepealed  and  unaffected,  as  their  estabhsh- 
ment  at  Sinai  left  it. 

And  when  the  prophet  speaks  of  a  new  covenant  to 
be  established, in  which  God  promises  to  "pour  his  spi- 
rit upon  all  flesh,  and  write  his  law  upon  our  inward 
parts,"  this  does  not  abolish  the  preceding  Abrahamic 
covenant,anymore  than  the  establishment  of  a  covenant 
at  Sinai  abolished  that  covenant;  which  Paul  expressly 
denies.  The  term  new  is  applied  in  this  passage  in  a 
comparative  sense,  denoting  merely  the  change  made 
in  the  administration  of  the  covenant  under  the  gospel 
dispensation,  in  the  greater  spirituality  of  its  privileges, 
and  their  extension  to  all  nations.  In  a  similar  man- 
ner the  prophet  Daniel  tells  us,  ii.  44,  "  In  the  days  of 
these  kings,  (i.  e.  under  the  fourth  or  Roman  power,) 
shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  that  shall  ne- 
ver  be  destroyed.^^  It  is  undoubtedly  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,or  the  gospel  church, that  is  here  intended  ;  and 
some  have  not  hesitated  to  argue,  that  inasmuch  as  it 
was  then  to  be  set  up,  it  could  not  have  existed  before  ; 
which  would  show  that  no  true  church  was  till  Christ 
came.  But  now  it  is  certain  Christ  did  not  speak  of  his 
3* 


30  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

kingdom,  as  essentially  different  from  what  had  before 
existed,  but  the  same,  only  differently  administered:  his 
was  the  kingdom  of  God  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given 
la  another  nation,  Matth.  xxi.  43.  The  kingdom  spoken 
of  by  Daniel,  therefore,  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  a  new 
kingdom,  but  a  kingdom  then  to  be  set  up  among  a 
different  people,  viz.  Gentiles,  whereas  it  had  before 
been  found  only  among  the  Jews. 

Another  objection  against  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  is  drawn  from  Gal.  iv.  21 — 25, 
where  Paul  argues  that  the  old  covenant  which  gen- 
dereth  to  bondage  is  of  no  more  force.  But  the  cove- 
nant of  bondage,  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  is 
the  covenant  made  at  Sinai  with  the  Jewish  nation* 
not  that  established  with  Abraham  ;  as  the  apostle  ex- 
pressly asserts,  v.  2.  That  covenant  of  bondage  made 
at  Sinai  is  abolished,  the  law  connected  with  it  is  done 
away.  But  this  (as  already  shown)  affects  not  the  per- 
petuity of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  On  the  contrary, 
in  the  very  spirit  of  the  doctrine  here  contended  for, 
the  apostle  proceeds  (in  the  fifth  chapter)  to  show  that 
God's  people  are  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  that 
law,  and  made  children  of  the  free-woman,  (i.  e.  heirs 
of  the  promise  made  by  covenant  to  Abraham,  as  was 
Isaac,  the  son  of  the  free-woman,)  "  wailing  for  the 
hope  of  righteousness  through  faith,"  chap.  v.  ver.  6  ; 
in  other  words,  permitted  to  entertain  the  hope  of  that 
gospel  before  preached  to  Abraham  in  the  covenant 
made  with  him,  the  substance  of  whose  promise  is 
"justification  by  faith."  For,  a  covenant  that  was  con^ 
firmed  before  of  God  in  Christ  (for  the  benefit  of  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  31 

children  of  the  free-woman,)  the  /aw  (of  bondage) 
which  was  (given  at  Sinai)  430  years  after ^  cannot  dis- 
annul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect,'^ 
Gal.  iii.  17.  A  fair  examination  of  this  common  ob- 
jection, only  ends  as  before,  in  showing  more  fully, 
that  the  abolition  of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  the  ter- 
mination of  the  covenant  of  bondage  connected  with 
it  at  Sinai,  impair  not,  but  establish  the  perpetuity  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant.  No  where,  then,  can  evi- 
dence  be  found  in  the  word  of  God,  that  this  ancient 
covenant  is  annulled  ;  and  if  so,  it  must  still  remain  in 
force. — iii.  18,  19. 

This  is  yet  further  apparent — Because  that  covenant 
contains  promises  which  could  never  he  fulfilled,  but  un- 
der the  Christian  dispensation. 

"  In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  bless- 
ed,"  Gen.  xii.  3 — a  father  of  many  nations  have  I 
made  thee!"  xvii.  5,  never  could  be  fully  accomplish- 
ed, so  long  as  the  administration  of  the  covenant  was 
confined  to  one  small  nation.  In  Gal.  iii.  the  apostle 
tells  us  plainly  this  promise  respected  the  Gentiles, 
"  the  scriptures  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the 
heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto 
Abraham,  saying.  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed," 
Gal.  iii.  8.  Accordingly  the  apostle  asserts  that  Christ 
came  and  delivered  us  from  the  curse,  that  the  bless- 
ing of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  ;  drawing 
this  conclusion,  which  must  be  pertinent  so  long  as  a 
gospel  church  remains  on  earth.  "  If  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."     If,  then,  the  people  of  Clirist  are  the 


32  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

seed  and  heirs  of  Abraham  according  to  the  promise^ 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  to  which  that  promise  was 
annexed, is  still  in  force,  and  must  continue  in  force  so 
long  as  there  shall  be  found  on  earth  those  who  are 
Christ's,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile.  But  if  believers 
now  are  interested  in  the  same  covenant,  and  entitled 
to  participate  in  the  same  blessing,  as  believers  of  old, 
the  church  now  is  the  same,  as  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  however  changed  its  external  ordi- 
nances. It  stands  deeply  interested  in  the  same  cove- 
nant, and  is  essentially  the  same  church. 

But  the  identity  of  the  church  under  the  Jewish  and 
christian  dispensation,  is  argued  not  only  from  the  per- 
petuity of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  but  also, 

2d.  From  the  several  figures  used  by  our  Lord  and 
his  apostles,  manifestly  intended  to  teach  this  very  truth. 

The  prophets  of  old  already  intimated  this,  in  the 
promises  they  recorded  of  the  enlargement  of  Zionby 
the  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles,  Isai.  xlix.  14.  22,   liv. 

5.  Gal.  iv.  27;  promises  never  fulfilled  if  the  christian 
church  be  not  the  same  as  Zion  of  old.  Our  Lord 
shows  that  the  change  of  dispensation  leaves  the  church, 
or  kingdom  of  heaven,  essentially  the  same,  when  he 
compares  the  church  to  a  vineyard,  taken  from  one 
set  of  husbandmen  and  let  out  to  another,  Matth.  xxi. 
41,  to  a  kingdom,  taken  from  one  people  and  given  to 
another,  Matth.  xxi.  43.     So  the  apostle,  Heb.  iii.  1 — 

6,  compares  the  church  to  a  house,  in  which  Moses  was 
faithful  as  a  servant,  but  Christ  as  a  son. 

In  Gal.  iv.  Paul  compares  the  church  to  an  heir 
who  continues  the  same  through  all  the  disciplinary 
process  of  his  pupilage,  till  he  arrive  at  maturity.  He 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  88 

is  not  one  person  while  under  tutors,  and  a  different 
person  when  entering  on  his  inheritance  ;  but  the  same. 
So  the  church,  founded  on  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
is  the  same  church,  whether  under  the  law  as  a 
schoolmaster,  with  carnal  ordinances,  or  enjoying  the 
perfect  liberty  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.* 

The  same  truth  the  apostle  teaches  the  Ephe- 
sians :  when  writing  to  them  he  says,  Eph.  ii.  12.  of 
the  Gentiles,  they  were  aliens  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise, 
and  represents  them  as  divided  by  a  partition  wall, 
V.  14.  from  the  church  of  God  among  the  Jews  : — 
this  middle  wall  of  partition,  the  apostle  tells  us,  is 
now  broken  down  by  Christ,  v.  14. — the  Gentiles 
are  brought  nigh,  v.  13. — they  are  no  more  strangers 
and  foreigners,  hut  fellow- citizens  with  the  saints,  of 
the  household  of  God,  v.  19. — growing  together  into 
one  holy  temple,  v.  21. — Eph.  ii.  18,20. 


*  The  celebrated  Robert  Hall,  late  minister  of  the  Baptist  So- 
ciety of  Cambridge,  England — and  now  pastor  of  the  Baptist 
Society  worshiping  at  Broadmead  chapel,  Bristol, — a  man  de- 
servedly admired  for  his  profound  thought,  his  commanding  elo- 
quence, and  the  unrivalled  richness  and  beauty  of  his  writings, 
virtually  admits  the  existence  of  a  true  church  among  the  Jews, 
and  the  identity  of  the  church,  under  the  former  and  the  present 
dispensation,  agreeably  to  what  is  here  contended  for — when, 
after  stating  the  points  of  resemblance,  and  of  dilTerence,  between 
the  Jewish  purifications,  the  baptism  of  John,  and  christian  bap- 
tism, he  remarks,  towards  the  close  of  section  1.  part  I.  of  his 
piece  on  Terms  of  Communion,  "  It  seemed  suitable  to  his  (our 
Lord's)  wisdom,  by  such  gentle  gradations,  to  conduct  his  church 
from  an  infantine  state,  to  a  state  of  maturity  and  perfection  /" — In 
the  New-York  edition  of  works  of  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  &c.  1830.— 
Vol.  I.  p.  40. 


34  Ilrt^ANT  BAPTISM. 

The  church  that  had  so  long  enjoyed  the  advanta- 
ges provided  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  is  not  here 
spoken  of  as  destroyed,  and  succeeded  by  another  ; 
but  her  limits  are  removed,  her  boundaries  extended, 
and  those  who  before  were  strangers  to  her  privileges 
are  brought  near,  introduced  among  her  saints,  and 
made  fellow-heirs  with  them  ;  which  is  precisely  the 
reverse  of  that  mode  of  speaking  that  would  be  appro- 
priate, if  the  ancient  covenant,  by  which  the  church 
had  so  long  enjoyed  the  advantages  of  regular  orga- 
nization as  a  visible  body,  had  been  annulled,  and  a 
new  church  now  set  up. 

The  same  truth  is  taught  in  Rom.  xi.  where,  under 
the  emblem  of  an  olive  tree,  the  church  is  denoted. 
That  nothing  else  can  be  meant  by  the  emblem  of  the 
olive  tree,  is  plain  ;  for,  under  the  same  emblem, 
the  visible  church  is  spoken  of  by  Jeremiah,  xi.  16. 
The  Lord  hath  called  thy  name  a  green  olive  tree ;  fair 
and  of  goodly  fruit.  With  the  noise  of  a  great  tumult 
he  hath  kindled  a  fire  upon  it,  and  the  branches  thereof 
are  broken,"  It  is  the  sin  of  forsaking  the  true  God 
for  Baal,  to  which  the  prophet  refers ;  and  the  sin  of 
unbelief  is  noticed  by  the  apostle  in  the  use  he  makes 
of  this  figure  in  Rom.  xi.  where  he  is  treating  of  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  for  unbelief  and  the  calling  of 
the  Gentiles  by  faith  into  the  church.  This  good 
olive  tree  cannot  be  intended  to  denote  the  ceremonial 
law,  for  that  was  done  away ;  and  there  can  be  no 
excision  from  privileges  that  have  come  to  an  end  ; 
moreover  to  the  privileges  of  the  ceremonial  law 
Gentiles  have  not  been  admitted,  for  those  privileges 
have  ceased.     By  this  figure  nothing  else  can  be  in- 


TNPANT  BAPTISM.  36 

tended  but  the  peculiar  relation  of  the  Jews  to  God, 
as  his  people,  the  visible  church,  enjoying  the  means 
of  grace,  in  virtue  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  The 
natural  branches  of  this  good  olive  tree  were  the 
Jews :  these  arc  broken  olF  on  account  of  unbe- 
lief. The  Gentiles,  as  branches  of  a  wild  olive  tree, 
are  grafted  into  this  good  olive  tree  among  the  natural 
branches,  and  with  them  partake  of  the  root  and  fat- 
ness of  the  tree  ;  i.  e.  of  the  privileges  secured  to  the 
church  by  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  The  change  of 
dispensation  under  the  gospel  is  here  then  compared 
to  pruning  out  dead  or  unfruitful  branches,  and  insert- 
ing others ;  but  the  tree  is  not  rooted  up  ;  no  other 
is  planted  in  its  place  ;  it  still  remains  the  same  tree  ; 
natural  and  ingrafted  branches  now  grow  on  it  to- 
gether ; — i.  e.  the  same  church  continues  :  some  Jews 
are  rejected  for  unbelief; — in  their  room  Gentiles 
have  been  admitted  to  the  church  ;  and  the  time  will 
yet  come  when  the  Jews  will  believe,  and  by  faith  be 
reinstated  in  the  same  church.  But  if  the  gospel 
church  be  not  essentially  the  same  with  the  Jewish, 
founded  on  the  same  ancient  Abrahamic  covenant,  it 
must  be  quite  another  church,  and  in  that  case,  the 
Jews  can  never  be  reinstated  in  their  ancient  privile- 
ges in  the  church;  they  must,  on  believing,  be  intro- 
duced into  a  church  in  which  they  never  had  a  place. 
Which  certainly  would  not  be  like  grafting  them  back 
again  into  their  own  olive  tree.  No  language  could 
more  unequivocally  show  than  does  the  figure  of  the 
olive  tree,  employed  by  the  apostle,  that  the  church 
of  God  continues  essentially  the  same,  notwithstand- 
ing the  change  of  dispensation,  partaking,  to  this  day, 


^  INFANT  BAPTISM.' 

of  the  privileges  secured  by  the  ancient  Abrahamic. 
covenant.* 


*  The  sameness  of  the  church  under  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment economy,  notwithstanding  the  change  of  dispensation,  is 
a  vital  point ;  it  is  indeed  the  turning  point  of  the  whole  con- 
troversy. Little  more  than  fifty  years  ago,  the  opposers  of  infant 
baptism  did  not  deny  that  the  Jews  were  a  true  church :  they 
then  rested  their  cause  exclusively  on  the  want  of  a  plain  scrip- 
tural warrant  for  infant  baptism,  and  the  incapabiUty  of  infants 
to  repent  and  believe.  But  when  by  the  celebrated  Peter  Ed- 
wards, the  instability  of  this  ground  was  shown,  a  Mr.  Jones 
(as  it  is  said,)  first  denied  the  existence  of  a  church  before  the 
day  of  pentecost ;  and  baptist  writers  have  followed  in  his  track 
ever  since ,  denying  at  the  same  lime,  the  interest  of  the  chris- 
tian church  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  This  strikes  against 
the  very  vitals  of  religion ;  it  strips  us  at  once  of  all  right  to  every 
single  promise  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  all  but  parts  of 
the  benefits  accruing  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  in  virtue  of  that 
covenant.  But  it  is  vain  to  deny  the  existence  of  a  church  of  God 
under  lae  Old  Testament  dispensation,  or  its  continued  existence 
now,  though  under  a  new  dispensation  ;  like  an  heir  released  by 
his  coming  of  age,  from  the  restraints  of  pupilage.  The  apos. 
tolic  emblem  of  the  good  olive  tree,  undergoing  a  change  only  in 
its  branches,  clearly  shows  this.  So  plainly  is  this  the  meaning 
of  that  figure,  that  a  recent  baptist  writer,*  who  denies  that  there 
was  any  visible  church  before  the  day  of  pentecost,  but  onlyf  the 
visible  state  of  the  Jews,  formed  into  a  peculiar  nation  at  the  foot 
of  Mount  Sinai,  entrusted  loith  the  oracles  of  God,  with  public 
means  of  grace,  a7id  regular  religious  instruction,  tells  us  when 
speaking  of  the  metaphor  of  an  olive  tree.J  "  This  good  olive 
tree  denotes  the  visible  state  of  the  Jews,  as  a  nation  worshiping 
the  true  God  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  means  of  grace,  which  may 
well  be  styled  the  root  and  the  fatness. " 

From  this  many  of  the  Jews  were  cut  off,  and  have  continued 


Prey's  Essays  on  Baptism,  first  edition  p.  67.        r  p.  93.        :  p.  94. 


INFANT  PAPTISIH.  87 

That  the  christian  church   is  but  a  continuation  of 
the  Jewisli,  is  argued,  thirdly :  from  the  absurdities 


"  for  ages  destitute  both  of  pubhc  and  private  means  of  religious 
instruction,  whilst  multitudes  of  the  gentiles  were  united  with 
those  Jews  who  embraced  the  christian  religion.  The  olive 
tree  or  congregation  of  Israel,  was  neither  plucked  up  by  the 
roots  nor  cut  ofi",  but  only  underwent  a  change  in  some  of  its 
branches.  Since  this  change  took  j.lace,  the  olive  tree  is  no 
longer  called  the  cougregation  of  Israel  or  of  the  Lord,  but  th« 
christian  icorld  ;  for  it  includes  all  that  are  horn  of  christian  pa- 
rents or  become  proselytes,  without  respect  to  their  moral  cha- 
racter,* just  as  it  was  with  the  Jewish  nation.  But  here  is  the 
ditference  :  since  the  change  has  taken  place  in  the  olive  tree, 
the  King  of  Sion  has  given  instructions  to  his  disciples  to  separate 
themselves  from  the  congregation^  and  to  form  themselves  into  a 
distinct  society  called  the  church,  and  thus  openly  and  visibly 
profess  their  devotedness  to  Christ." 

In  this  remarkable  paragraph  we  have  granted  all  that  we  want ; 
the  olive  tree,  he  asserts,  denotes  the  visible  state  of  the  Jews  as  a 
peculiar  people  entrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God,  with  public  means 
of  grace,  and  regular  religious  instruction,  n.  p.  93.  But  what  is 
a  visible  church,  if  a  peculiar  people  entrusted  with  God's  oracles, 
with  public  means  of  grace  and  regular  religious  instruction,  be  not 
such  a  church  ?  More  especially,  when  these  privileges  have  been 
granted  under  a  covenant,  in  which  God  promises  to  be  the  God 
of  that  people,  and  of  their  seed?  This  visible  society  was  the 
olive  tree.  The  same  tree  subsists,  changed  only  in  its  branches, 
by  the  admission  of  Gentiles.  The  Gentiles  therefore,  having 
now  the  oracles  of  God,  means  of  grace  and  religious  instruc- 
tion, are  at  this  day  the  olive  tree,  still  partaking  of  the  root  and 
tatness,  just  as  did  the  Jews  of  old  ;  and  all  their  children  are 
with  them  partakers  of  the  same  fatness,  as  among  the  Jews 

*  It  may  be  worth  while  to  compare  this  assertion  wit)i  the  known  fact, 
ihalall  Israelitps  gnulty  of  gross  offences,  were  to  be  cut  off  from  thechurck. 
KeeEx,  xxii.  2t».  Lev.  xxiv.  15,  16,  17,  xviii.  29.  Ex.  xxxi.  14.  Ex.  xxi.  If.  17. 
L«vjt.  xxiii.  29,  30.  Num.  ix.  13.  xix.  20.  Num.  xv.  30,  31.  Deut.  xvii.  12,  18. 

4 


38  trvJAIvr  BAPTISM. 

that  follow  its  denial ;  for  then  the  christian  church  has 
no  connexion  with  the  people  of  God  before  the  coming 


formerly.  This  is  all  that  we  contend  for,  and  it  only  remains  to 
ascertain  how  the  children  formerly  becarne  visibly  incorporated 
in  the  same  tree,  (viz.  by  circumcision,)  and  then,  further,  to  see 
that  baptism  is  the  christian  circumcision,  as  will  soon  be  shown  ; 
and  then  we  have  the  full  concession  even  of  a  baptist  writer,  to  the 
identity  of  the  visible  christian  and  Jewish  church  state  ;  the 
membership  of  infants,  and  the  scriptural  warrant  for  infant 
baptism.  The  thing-  is  granted,  simply  from  the  overwhelming 
weight  of  evidence  ;  the  7ia7ne  alone  is  denied,  simply  from  love 
of  hypothesis.  After  granting  that  the  olive  tree  denotes  the 
Jews  as  a  visible  society,  enjoying  divine  oracles,  and  ordinances, 
and  instruction,  it  is  a  mere  play  on  words  to  call  them  the  con- 
gregation of  the  Lord,  deny  that  they  were  a  church,  and  then 
assert  that  the  olive  tree,  as  now  including  gentile  branches,  is 
the  christian  icorld,  not  the  gospel  church.  It  might  call  for 
some  ingenuity  to  expUin  what  is  meant  by  the  christian  v^orld. 
The  truth  is,  the  term  church,  church  of  God  as  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  answers  exactly  to  the  Old  Testament  phraseology, 
congregation  of  Israel,  congregation  of  the  Lord.  The  apostles 
were  Jews,  who  applied  Jewish  phrases  to  gospel  things  ;  and  we 
cannot  obtain  a  correct  understanding  of  New  Testament  terms, 
but  by  comparing  them  with  the  correspondent  ones  found  in  the 
Old  Testament. 

Mark  now  the  absurdities  which  follow  a  denial  that  the  olive 
tree  denotes  the  visible  church  itself.  This  writer  tells  us,  since 
the  change  has  taken  place  in  the  olive  tree,  the  King  of  Sion 
has  given  instructions  to  his  disciples,  to  separate  themselves 
from  the  congregation,  and  form  themselves  into  a  distinct  so- 
ciety, called  the  church,  p.  94.  The  ohve  tree,  you  remember,  he 
told  us,  denotes  the  congregation,  the  disciples  are  the  branches. 
Therefore,  these  branches  are  grafted  by  God  into  the  olive  tree, 
not  to  remain  there,  (by  no  means,  its  fatness  is  not  enough  for 
ihem,)  they  are  to  separate  themselves  from  the  tree  into  which 
they  have  just  been  grafted,  and  form  themselves  into  another 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  90 

of  Clifist,  and  can  claim  no  interest  in  any  of  the  pri- 
vileges tliey  enjoyed,  or  in  any  of  the  promises  made  to 
them. 

It  was  in  conseqiirnce  of  llicir  covenant  relation  to 
God  as  the  seed  ol"  Abraliam,  marked  witli  the  discri- 
minating seal  of  tliat  covenant,  tliat  the  Jews  were 
treated  and  spoken  ot"  as  God's  people  ;  hence  to  thcni 
as  one  visible  society  revelations  were  sent,  ordinances 
of  divine  worship  were  appointed,  and  promises  were 
given.  These  were  not  given  to  the  elect  as  such  ; 
(this  were  impossible  Avithout  a  special  revelation  to 
each  individual,)  it  was  to  the  church,  as  a  visible 
society  in  covenant  with  God  ;  no  man,  nor  company 
of  men,  could  ever  claim  an  interest  in  any  of  the 
promises  or  blessings,  but  as  a  part  of  the  one  visible 
church.  But  if  the  gospel  church  be  not  essentially 
the  same  as  the  Jewish,  it  must  be,  either  because  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  applied  to  the  Jews  alone  ;  and 
then  none  but  a  Jew  can  have  a  right  to  a  single  Old 
Testament  promise  (which  is  manifestly  untrue,  be- 
cause that  covenant  expressly  included  all  nations  :) 


distinct  society,  i.  e.  into  another  tree  !  How  natural  an  interpre- 
tation !  Brandies  grafted  into  a  tree,  that,  self-moved,  they  may 
forthwith  separate  themselves  from  the  tree,  provide  themselves 
with  a  trunk  and  root  and  fatness,  and  becoms  another  tree  ! 
A  conclusion,  to  avoid  which,  such  absurdities  must  be  resorted 
to,  is  irresistible.  The  Jewish  congregation  was  the  true  visible 
church  of  God.  That  churcli  still  subsists,  enlarged  it  is  true  by 
the  admission  of  the  gentiles  ;  but  its  root  is  the  same,  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham;  its  fatness  the  same,  the  privileges  secured 
by  that  covenant;  only,  now  made  richer  Btill,  by  the  clearer 
light,  stronger  motives,  and  freer  grace  of  the  gospel ! 


40  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

or  else  it  must  be  because  that  covenant  has  ceased  to 
be  in  force.  But  if  so,  all  the  promises  made  under 
the  operation  of  that  covenant  (and  made  surely  to 
those  alone  who  were  interested  in  that  covenant,)  are 
come  to  an  end  :  in  that  case,  they  have  no  longer  any 
force  ;  they  can  be  claimed  by  no  soul  living,  Jew  or 
Gentile.  If  this  be  true,  then  no  promise  found  in 
the  psalms,  or  the  prophets,  or  any  where  in  the  Old 
Testament,  can  be  pleaded  any  more.  The  widow 
cannot  plead  that  Jehovah  will  be  a  God  to  the  widow,  or 
that  he  will  be  a  father  to  her  orphan  children.  If  this 
is  so,  the  dying  father  has  often  pleaded  without  au- 
thority, and  in  vain,  the  promise,  leave  thy  fatherles^s 
children  to  me,  Jer.  xlix.  11.  I  will  keep  them  alive! 
Then  too,  christians  plead  in  vain  the  promise,  that  the 
time  shall  come,  when  the  whole  earth  shall  be  filled 
vnth  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  Isa.  xi.  9.  If  that 
ancient  covenant  be  repealed,  then  believers  are  not 
Abraham^s  seed  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise. 
Gal.  iii.  29.  They  can  have  no  connexion  with  Abra- 
ham at  all ;  contrary  to  the  apostle's  assertion.  If  so, 
the  church  is  not  a  holy  temple,  including  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,  Eph.  ii.  20,  21.  Jesus  Christ  being  the 
chief  corner-stone.  She  is  built  on  the  apostles,  but 
not  on  the  prophets  :  notwithstanding  what  Paul  says. 
And  if  so,  she  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  promises 
given  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  ;  though 
Paul  assures  us,  all  the  promises  are  to  believers,  yea 
and  amen  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  because  he  teaches  us  that 
all  who  are  in  Christ,  are  of  consequence  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.     To  such 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  41 

absurdities,  unscriptural  and  appalliiifr,  arc  wo  driven, 
by  denying  the  perpetuity  of  tlic  Abrahamic  covenant, 
and  the  identity  of  the  gospel  and  the  Jewish  church. 

To  sum  up  the  wliolc  argument  at  one  view.  The 
church  received  her  fuller  organization  by  the  cove- 
nant ratified  with  Abraham,  about  four  thousand  years 
since.  Tiiat  covenant  has  never  been  annulled  :  it  re- 
mained unaflectcd,  alike  by  the  institution  of  the  cere- 
monial law  of  peculiarity  among  the  Jews  at  Mount 
Sinai,  and  by  the  abrogation  of  that  law  at  the  death 
of  Christ  :  and  it  contains  promises  which  can  never 
be  fulfilled,  unless  it  be  still  in  force.  That  covenant, 
then,  stands  good  :  the  church  found  therein,  provision 
made  for  her  continuance,  and  for  her  being  supplied 
with  outward  ordinances,  and  with  special  grace.  So 
long  as  that  covenant  stands,  the  church  founded 
thereon  is  the  same.  A  conclusion  borne  out  by  the 
reasoning  and  the  various  expressive  figures  employed 
by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles ;  and  further  confirmed 
by  the  absurdities  apparent  on  denying  that  the  chris- 
tian  church  is  essentially  the  same  as  the  Jewish  : 
since  it  would  strip  us  at  once  of  all  right  to  the  pro- 
mises contained  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  church 
of  God,  therefore,  survives  all  the  changes  of  dispen- 
sation uninjured,  and  unaltered  as  to  her  essential 
features. 

We  advance  now  to  the  third  argument  for  infant 
baptism,  viz  : 

III.  Infant  membership  in  the  church  of  God  once 
established,  never  revoked,  is  still  in  force.  Once  grant- 
ed that  the  gospel  church  is  only  a  continuance  of  the 
Jewish,  and  this  conclusion  follows  irresistibly.  Some 
4* 


42  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

privileges  may  be  enlarged,  and  others  added  ;  but  the 
church  is  unaltered,  her  rights  remain  unimpaired ; 
unless  God  her  king  himself  repeal  them.*  God  did 
once  confer  on  the  children  of  his  visible  people,  the 
right  of  admission  into  the  visible  church  in  early  in- 
fancy  ;  for  in  making  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
God  expressly  required  its  seal,  circumcision,  to  be 
fixed  to  infants  ;  Gen.  xvii.  12.  Now  Paul  teaches  the 
spiritual  meaning,  and  binding  force  of  circumcision.  It 
bound  all  the  circumcised  to  keep  the  law,  Gal.  v.  iii. 
Of  course  every  one  circumcised  in  infancy  by  God's 
command,  was  bound,  as  soon  as  he  attained  a  suitable 
age,  to  keep  God's  whole  law.  At  a  suitable  age  they 
must  go  up  to  Jerusalem  and  keep  the  passover,  or  be 
cut  off  as  breakers  of  God's  covenant.  They  were, 
therefore,  by  circumcision  introduced  into  the  visible 
church,  and  laid  under  obligation  to  perform  all  the 
duties  of  churcii  members.  Lev.  xxii.  9.  Num.  ix.  13. 
And  into  this  church  membership  they  were,  by  divine 
direction,  brought  in  infancy.  As  the  church  continues 
still  the  same,  this  privilege,  so  many  ages  ago  con- 
ferred on  the  infant  seed  of  the  church,  is  still  theirs 
of  right :  and  it  must  continue  theirs,  till  an  enactment 
shall  be  produced,  from  the  statute  book  of  heaven, 
rescinding  that  right.     Never  yet  has  such  prohibitioa 


*  On  the  exodus  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  the  ordinance  of  the 
pa3sover  was  instituted ;  but  this  affected  not  at  all  the  obliga- 
tion to  receive  circumcision,  nor  the  right  of  any  to  admission 
into  the  church,  to  whom  that  right  had  once  been  granted, /or 
tht  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance,  i.  e.  God  is  not 
fickle,  nor  inconstant :  he  does  not  change  his  mind  j  first  confer- 
ring, and  then  wantonly  recalling  his  favours. 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


4.^ 


been  found;   Not  a  hint  is  given  in  the  New  Testament 
that  the  right  of  infants  to  church  membership  is  taken 
away.    As  it  had  already  long  existed  in  the  church,  if 
it  was  to  continue,  no  new  direction  on  that  head  was 
needed.     If  it  was  to  cease,  explicit  directions  to  that 
eticct   must   have   been   given.     The  silence  of  the 
New  Testament  on  this   subject,  is,  therefore,  equiva- 
lent  to  a  full  proof,  that  the   infant   children  of  God's 
people  are  not  only  capable  of  church  membership, 
just  as  they  were  of  old,  but  that  they  are  entitled  to 
such   membership,  by  the  appointment  of  God,  unde- 
niably made,  never  revoked.     How  infants  are  to  be 
admitted,  is  a  question  afterwards  to  be  examined  ;  the 
decision  of  which,  however,  can  no  way  affect  their 
right  to  admission. 

IV.  A  fourth  argument  for  infant  baptism  is,  that 
since  the  infant  children  of  believers  are  still  to  be  ad- 
mitted  to  membership  in  the  church  of  God  ;  they  must 
be  baptized  :  for  baptism  is  the  christian  circumcision  : 
If  circumcision  had  not  been  abolished,  the  argu- 
ments  thus  far  adduced  would  show,  our  children  ought 
to  be  circumcised.  That  they  must  be  baptized,  not 
circumcised,  rests  for  its  authority  on  the  proof  that 
baptism  is  substituted  for  circumcision. 

That  this  is  true,  appears,  first,  because  baptismis  now, 
aa  circumcision  was  under  the  former  dispensation,  the 
discriminating  mark  applied  to  the  members  of  God's 
visible  church.  So  familiar  was  the  idea  of  the  distinc- 
tive  nature  of  this  ordinance,  as  pointing  out  the  differ- 
ence  between  the  church  of  God,  and  the  world  lying 
in  wickedness  ;  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  kingdom 
of  Satan  ;  that  not  only  was  every  male  Israelite  to  be 


44  INFANT  BAPTISBT. 

circumcised,  the  uncircumcised  were  to  be  cut  off  as 
breakers  of  God's  coyenant ;  not  only  do  we  find  cir- 
cumcision spoken  of  as  rolling  away  the  reproach  of 
Egypt,  a  heathen  land,  from  the  Israelites  when  they 
came  under  Joshua  to  Gilgal,  Josh.  v.  9.  but  through- 
out the  scriptures,  we  find  the  visible   people  of  God 
called  the  circumcision,  heathen  the  uncircumcision*  So 
Paul  says,  '^  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  saw  that  the 
gospel   of   the   uncircumcision  was   committed  unto 
me,  as    the    gospel   of   the    circumcision  was    unto 
Peter,"   Gal.  ii.  7.  i.  e.  that  I  was  commissioned  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  heathen,  as  Peter  was  unto 
the  Jews  ;  and  in  the   two   following  verses,  the  cir- 
cumcision,  is  a  term  again  used,  as  synonymous  with 
Jews,  or  the  visible  church  of  God  ;  the  ujicircumcision, 
as  interchangeable  with  gentiles,  or  heathen  sustaining 
no  such  covenant  relation  to  God.     But  under  the 
New  Testament  also,  the  church  has,  from  the  first, 
applied  to  her  members,   a   discriminating  mark  in 
baptism.     The  members  of  the  visible  gospel  church 
are  persons  who  have  been  baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Trinity.     For  disobedience  to  God's  pre- 
cepts, baptized  persons  may  be  cut  off  from  participa- 
tion in  the  privileges  of  the  church  ;  their  baptism  is 
not  indeed  thereby  rendered  invalid,  they  are  not  re- 
baptized  on  their  return  with  penitence  ;  no  more  were 
persons  who  had  been  excommunicated  for  sin  from 
the  Jewish  church,  thereby  rendered  uncircumcised  : 
if  readmitted  on  their  repentance,  circumcision  could 
not  be  renewed  on  them.     Still,  the  circumcised,  as  a 
body,  were  God's  visible  church  ;  and  the  baptized,  as 
a  body,  are  now  the  church.  The  uncircumcised  of  old, 


INFAItT  BAPTISM.  45 

had  no  connexion  with  God's  church  :  the  unbaplizod 
now,  have  no  connexion  with  the  church.  As  circum- 
cision was  of  old,  baptism  is  now,  the  distinctive 
badge,  to  mark  the  church  of  God  from  the  kingdom 
of  Satan. 

But  further,  As  clrcumciswn  was  of  old^  so  bapLism 
now  is,  the  initiaiory  rile  of  the  church  of  God.  It  is 
not  merely  a  mark  found  on  all  the  visible  church  ;  it 
is  an  ordinance,  the  administration  of  which  introduces 
them  into  the  church.  Under  the  former  dispensation, 
before  he  was  circumcised,  no  man  had  any  right 
either  to  eat  the  passover,  Exod.  xii.  48.  or  to  enter 
mto  the  sanctuary,  Ezek.  xliv.  9.  or  to  offer  sacrifice 
to  the  Most  High.  But  the  passover,  and  worship  in 
the  sanctuary,  were  privileges  appertaining  to  the 
church :  while  uncircumcised,  no  man  had  access  to 
them,  for  he  was  still  out  of  the  church.  Circumci- 
gion  entitled  him  to  participate  in  them  ;  because  by 
circumcision  he  was  brought  into  a  covenant  relation 
to  God,  and  became  a  member  of  the  church.  In 
like  manner,  no  unbaptized  person  has  access  to  the 
christian  passover,  the  Lord's  supper ;  for  he  is  not  of 
the  church.  To  approach  that  ordinance,  among  chris- 
tians of  any  denomination  he  must  be  baptized.  When 
Christ  commanded  his  apostles  to  go,  preach  the  gos- 
pel, and  make  disciples  ;  they  must  baptize  them  into 
the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  And  we  find  that 
wherever  they  went,  when  men  professed  faith  in 
Christ,  they  baptized  them,  men  and  women.  Cor- 
nelius, Saul  of  Tarsus,  Lydia,  the  Philippian  jailer,  and 
the  3000  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  although  many  of 
them  (like  the  twelve  believers  Paul  found  at  Ephesua, 


46  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Acts.  xix.  1 — 5.)  had  doubtless  been  baptized  by  John 
the  baptist,  yot  on  their  professing  faith  in  Christ, 
they  must  all  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.  Then,  and  not  before,  they  became  members 
of  the  christian  church,  and  had  thenceforth  access 
to  all  its  privileges.  So  that,  just  as  circumcision  was 
of  old,  baptism  now  is,  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the 
church.  It  is,  as  one  has  well  expressed  it,  su'earing 
them  in,  to  be  citizens  of  that  community,  of  which  God 
is  the  king  and  lawgiver. 

But  this  substitution  is  argued,  thirdly  From  the  re- 
vealed fact,  that  baptism,  in  the  gospel  church,  denotes 
precisely  the  same  spiritual  change  that  circumcision 
did,  in  the  Jewish, 

Some  would  degrade  the  rite  of  circumcision  to  a 
mere  carnal  ordinance,  a  sign  of  carnal  descent,  a 
mark  of  national  distinction,  a  token  of  interest  in 
temporal  promises  only ;  and  they  assure  us,  that  its 
design  was  chief  y,  to  distinguish  the  Jews  from  all 
other  nations.  It  did,  indeed,  answer  all  these  ends  ; 
vet  not  only,  nor  chiefly.  The  chief  design  was 
spiritual,  it  imported  the  putting  away  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh.  Col.  ii.  11.  and  baptism  imports  the 
same  thing  now,  as  the  same  text  shows  us.* 

Circumcision  denoted  inward  holiness  ;  it  was  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith  ;  a  token  to  every  Jew, 


♦  Indeed  a  recent  baptist  writer  has  felt  himself  constrained 
to  admit  that  Col.  ii.  11,  12.  teaches  that  baptism  and  circum- 
cision answer  one  another,  their  design  is  the  same.  This  con- 
cession he  makes,  in  saying  that  Venema,  though  a  pccdobaptist. 
acknowledges  it,  Frey  p.  55,  This  is  in  fact  too  plain  to  be  denied. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  47 

that  he  was  required  to  attain  tliat  righteousness  which 
IS  by  faitli,  as  Abraham  did  ;  to  acquire  and  maintain 
that  imritij  of  hearty  which   is  the  iVuit  of  true  faith  : 
Hence  the  promise  found  in  Deut.  xxx.  G.    "The  Lord 
thy  Godwin  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of 
thy  seed,   to   love   the   Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine 
heart  and  with   all   thy  soul,  that  thou   maycst  live." 
This  gracious  promise   every  true  Jew  could   claim  ; 
for  Paul  tells  us  "  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly  ; 
and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart ;  in  the  spirit,  and 
not  in  the  letter,  Rom.  ii.  29.    In  short,  circumcision 
denotes  neither  more  nor  less  than  regeneration :  and 
baptism   now   denotes   the  very  same    thing.      Thus 
Ananias  said  to  Paul,   "  arise,  be  baptized  and  wash 
aicay  thy  sins,  Acts.  xxii.  16.  Implying  that  baptism 
denotes  purification  from   sin  ;   So  Peter  (IP.  iii.  2.) 
tells  us  "  baptism  is  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,   but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  to- 
wards God,''"'  i.  e.  baptism  is  not  an  unmeaning  cere- 
mony, a  mere  external  washing,  but  it  is  significative 
of  inward  purification.     Hence  christians  are  said  to 
be   baptized  icith  the  Holy  Ghost :  buried  with  Christ 
by  baptism  into  death,  Rom.  vi.  4.  raised  to  newness 
of  life  :   crucified  unto  sin,  6  ;   They  are  said,  by  bap- 
tism to  have  put  on  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  27.  Paul  tells  the 
Ephesians  (v.  26.)  Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave 
himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and   cleanse  it 
with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word  ;  and  to  Titus 
(iii.  5.)  he  declares,  "  God  saved  us  by  the  washing 
of  regeneration,   and  renewing  of   the  Holy   Ghost. 
All  which  goes  clearly  to  show,  that  baptism  is  design- 
ed to  represent  regeneration,  or  the  purification  of  the 


48  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  just  as  circumcision  did  of 
old.  Indeed,  so  obvious  is  this  design  of  baptism,  that 
most  of  the  early  christian  writers  call  baptism  rege- 
neration ;  and  they  seem  often  to  have  regarded  bap- 
tism as  being  rather  regeneration  itself,  than  the 
sacramental  sign  of  it.  An  error  which  some  ar« 
said  to  hold  to  this  very  day. 

But  let  it  be  observed,  4thly.  Circumcision  is  now  laid 
aside  by  the  avtiiorityof  God,  and  baptism  is  appointed 
by  the  same  authority.  That  circumcision  is  abolished, 
none  will  deny.  The  Holy  Ghost  saith,  is  any  called  in 
uncircum,cision  ?  let  him  not  become  circumcised !  Cor. 
vii.  18.  And  on  the  authority  of  the  head  of  the  church, 
by  whom  circumcision  was  appointed,  and  then  abolish- 
ed, much  about  the  time  of  its  abolition,  baptism,  inti. 
mating  the  same  things,  and  answering  the  same  ends^ 
was  appointed,  as  the  ordinance  by  which  alone  persona 
are  introduced  into  the  church  ;  representing  symbol- 
lically,  as  circumcision  did  of  old,  that  spiritual  cleans, 
ing  which  is  wrought  in  the  true  Israel  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Surely  this  shows  something  like  the  substi- 
tution of  baptism  for  circumcision. 

Observe  then,  5thly,  Circumcision  was  to  the  Old 
Testament  church  the  seal  of  the  covenant  on  which  her 
blessings  were  founded,  and  the  gospel  church  is  estab- 
lished on  the  same  covenant.  If,  then,  baptism  be  not 
substituted  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  the  covenant  of 
God  with  his  church  is  left  without  a  seal. 

We  have  the  authority  of  Paul  for  calling  circum- 
cision a  seal,  Rom.  iv.  11.  a  token  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith  ;  which  was  the  grand  doctrine  taught,  the 
grand  blessing  conveyed,  in   that  covenant,  to  which 


IISFANT  KAPTISM.  49 

circumcision  was  appended  as  a  seal.  Under  the 
Old  Testament,  circumcision  was  a  significant  token 
appointed  of  God,  to  remind  every  member  of  the 
visible  church  of  this  grand  doctrine  :  and  to  every 
Israelite  who  became  a  true  believer  as  Abraham  was, 
his  circumcision  was  to  him  God's  seal,  assuring  him 
that  he  was  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham  ;  like  him 
freely  justified  by  faith. 

The  church  still  lives.  We  gentiles  are  noV/  ad- 
mitted to  membership,  and  to  a  participation  in  all 
the  privileges  of  the  sajne  covenant :  but  circumcision 
is  no  more  !  Is  then  that  covenant,  the  blessing  of 
which  is  come  on  the  gentiles,  now  destitute  of  a 
seal  ?  It  cannot  be  !  The  same  authority  that  laid 
aside  circumcision,  has  appointed  baptism  ;  the  abro- 
gation of  the  former,  and  the  institution  of  the  latter, 
were  simultaneous  :  as  the  one  was  laid  aside,  the 
other  was  introduced.  The  same  things  intimated  by 
the  former  are  denoted  by  the  latter.  As  the  former 
when  applied  to  any  person  introduced  him  within  the 
bonds  of  God's  covenant,  so  the  latter  introduces  per- 
sons to  a  participation  in  the  privileges  of  the  same 
covenant.  As  the  latter  is  spiritual  in  its  import, 
equally  spiritual  was  the  former;  and  though  the  for- 
mer was  frequently  abused,  misunderstood  and  mis- 
applied, equally  capable  of  abuse  is  the  latter.  Every 
thing  which  could  be  imagined  necessary  to  consti- 
tute the  one  a  substitute  for  the  other  is  here  found  ; 
leaving  it  next  to  impossible  to  doubt,  on  attentive 
consideration,  that  baptism  is  verily  the  appointed 
seal  of  God's  covenant  with  the  gospel  church,  as 
circumcision  was  with  the  Jewish.  Accordingly  we 
5 


50  l^-^A^-T  baptism:. 

find  the  Apostle  Paul  reasoning  in  a  manner  accor- 
dant with  this  idea.  Under  the  Old  Testament,  it 
was  by  circumcision  that  men  became  members  of  one 
body,  the  visible  church  ;  under  the  new,  hy  baptism , 
as  in  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  by  one  spirit  ye  are  all  baptized  into 
one  body,  i.  e.  just  as  baptism  brings  us  into  the  visible 
church,  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,  gives  us  mem- 
bership in  the  invisible.  Again  Gal.  iii.  27.  as  ma?iy 
of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ ;  i.  e.  the  thing  signified  by  baptism  renders  us 
members  of  Christ's  spiritual  body,  just  as  the  out- 
ward  ordinance  of  baptism  brings  us  into  membership 
in  his  visible  body,  the  church;  and  he  adds.  If  ye 
he  Christ's,  tJien  are  ye  Abraham^s  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise.  Baptism,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  is  a  visible  putting  on  of  Christ :  it  is  by  bap- 
tism we  become  Christ's,  as  members  of  his  visible 
body  ;  by  baptism  then  we  are  introduced  among  the 
visible  seed  of  Abraham,  and  are  marked  or  visibly 
sealed  as  heirs  of  the  promise  made  to  them  as  a 
visible  society  ;  i.  e.  baptism  is  now  the  seal  of  th^ 
covenant  originally  made  with  Abraham,  and  still  in 
force  in  the  church,  just  as  of  old  circumcision  was 
that  seal.  That  this  being  Christ's  by  baptism,  and 
this  heirship  with  him,  are  properly  spiritual  in  their 
meaning,  no  more  aflfects  the  reasoning  which  shows 
baptism  to  be  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  substituted  in 
place  of  circumcision,  than  the  fact  that  outward  cir- 
cumcision was  not  circumcision  of  the  heart,  and  that 
without  inward  circumcisior^  Jews  were  not  all  Israel, 
that  were  of  Israel,  (Rom.  ix.)  not  heirs  to  the  spi- 
ritual blessings  of  Abraham's  covenant,  would  show 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


51 


that  circumcision  was  not  the  visiblo  seal  of  that 
covenant.  The  two  ordinances  are  strictly  parallel ; 
outward  as  administered  bj-  men,  and  outward  seals 
of  the  same  covenant ;  but  denoting  spiritual  affections, 
to  which  alone  the  fulness  of  the  spiritual  blessings 
appertained.  This  close  parallelism  only  shows  the 
more  clearly  that  baptism  is  noic  siibstihited  for  cir- 
cumcision, as  a  seal  of  God^s  covenant  with  his  visible 
church. 

But  Gthly,  analog}/  furnishes  us  with  another  argu- 
ment for  this  substitution.  In  the  Old  Testament 
church  were  two  standing  ordinances  ;  circumcision, 
once  to  be  administered  to  every  one  at  his  introduc- 
tion to  the  church ;  and  the  passovcr,  to  which  every 
circumcised  person,  and  such  alone,  were  to  be  ad- 
mitted ;  and  which  was  frequently  to  be  celebrated. 

In  like  manner,  in  tho  gospel  rbnrch  are  two  ordi- 
nances only  ;  baptism  to  be  administered  but  once  to 
each  individual  on  his  admission  to  the  church ;  and 
the  Lord's  supper  to  be  frequently  celebrated  by  those 
only  who  have  been  baptized.  The  passover  prefi- 
gured redemption  to  be  wrought  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  as  well  as  commemorated  the  deliverance  of 
Israel  from  Egyptian  bondage.  The  Lord's  supper 
commemorates  the  same  redemption  accomplished  by 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  it  prefigures  the  fuller  en- 
joyment of  its  benefits  by  believers  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  above.  Now  the  Lord's  supper  has,  in  the 
gospel  church,  taken  the  place  of  the  Jewish  passover, 
as  Paul  shows,  in  calling  it  the  christian  passover, 
(I  Cor.  V.  7.)  We  might  then  infer  that  as  the  Lord's 
'Bupper   is  the   christian  passover,  so  the   ordinance 


52  INFANT  BAPTIS:^, 

which  must  be  received  prior  to  a  participation  of 
the  supper,  must  have  been  appointed  in  place  of  that 
necessarily  prior  to  the  passover  of  old  ;  more  espe- 
cially when  these  two  ordinances,  more  manifestly 
than  the  two  former,  signify  the  same  thing  ;  and  bap- 
tism  was  instituted  as  an  initiatory  ordinance,  just  at 
the  time  when  the  other  ceased.  The  probability 
appears  strong,  therefore,  that  as  the  eucharist  is  the 
christian  passover,  baptism  must  be  the  christian  cir- 
cumcision : 

But  we  have  more  than  probability  for, 
7.  We  find  that  once  at  least  in  the  Scriptures,  bap- 
tism is  expressly  called  circumcision ;  thus  in  Col.  ii. 
11,  12.  we  read,  "In  whom  (i.  e.  Christ)  also  ye  are 
circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,  huried  mith  him  in  haptlsm  :'' 
The  context  shows,  that  the  apostle  is  opposing  the 
sentiment  of  those  who  taught  the  continued  necessity 
of  circumcision  ;  this  necessity  he  denies,  on  the  ground 
that  believers  are  already  circumcised,  with  christian 
circumcision,  or  baptism :  for  by  the  circumcision 
made  without  hands,  Jewish  circumcision  cannot  be 
meant ;  because  that  was,  of  course,  performed  by  the 
hands  of  the  priests  :  his  meaning  he  himself  explains, 
telling  us  that  the  circumcision  of  which  he  is  speak- 
ing  consists  in  ^'putting  off  the  sins  of  the  flesh"  i.  e. 
regeneration,  or  that  inward  cleansing  which  is  signi- 
lied  by  baptism,  and  which  is  actually  found  in  every 
beUever,  "  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  of  Christ, 
buried  with  him  in  baptism :"  According  to  all  the  es.- 
tablished  laws  of  interpretation,  the  latter  clause  must 


INFATrr   UATTISM.  ^^ 


be  regarded  as  exegeticul  of  the  former ;  and  the 
passage  not  only  teaches  that  baptism  answers  to 
circumcision,  (which  even  baptists  admit,  as  wc  have 
^een,)  not  only  that  the  design  of  the  two  ordinances 
is  the  same,  baptism  being  now  the  appointed  token 
of  the  same  inward  purity  which  circumcision  for- 
merly  represented  ;  but  it  does  positively  call  baptism, 
the  circumcision  of  Christ,  or  christian  circumcision  ; 
and  on  this  substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision, 
rests  the  argument  of  the  apostle  in  that  passage, 
which  is  this  ;  that  since  christians  arc  spiritually  cir- 
cumcised in  baptism,  they  have  no  need  of  the  out- 
ward  circumcision  made  with  hands,  to  be  a  type  of 
that  purity.* 


=^  We  have  already  noticed  the  admission  of  a  baptist  writer, 
that  baptism  answers  to  circumcision  :  And  yet  it  is  painful  to 
observe  the  disingenuousness  of  some  who  would  evade  the 
force  of  scriptural  evidence.  The  same  writer,  when  comment- 
ing on  the  phraise  (Col.  ii.  12.)  risen  with  him  through  faith,  4-c. 
remarks,  p.  54.  "  the  persons  here  spoken  of  were  adults,  who 
believed,  and  this  passage  has  therefore  nothing  to  do  with  infant 
baptism."  This  remark  the  writer  makes  while  attempting  to 
show  thai  baptism  is  not  a  substitute  for  circumcision,  although, 
we  contend,  that  very  passage  virtually  asserts  that  it  is.  The 
simple  question  here  at  issue  is,  does  the  Apostle  in  that  passage 
speak  of  baptism  as  importing  the  same  as  circumcision  ?  Does 
he  call  it  circumcision  ?  No  matter  whether  in  the  particular  case 
of  which  he  is  speaking,  baptism  were  administered  to  adults  or 
infants,  to  believers  or  to  those  who  could  give  no  evidence  of 
faith,  if  he  calls  this  ordinance  christian  circumcision,  (as  he 
plainly  docs)  that  is  enough,  the  point  is  settled  ;  the  question 
respecting  the  application  of  baptism  to  infants,  is  an  entireljr 
distinct  thing,  to  be  settled  on  other  ground. 

Au  instance  of  similar  inattention  to  the  proper  point  of  in- 
5* 


54 


I^'FA^T  BAPTISM^ 


And  hence  also  we  find,  that  just  as  of  old,  God's 
people  were  called  the  circumcision,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  so,  as  if  purposely  to  show  that  in  be- 
coming Christ's  by  baptism,  we  become  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promige,  just  as 
of  old. men  did  by  circumcision;  i.  e,  to  show  that 
baptism  now  takes  the  place  of  circumcision ;  Paul 
says,  (Phil.  iii.  3.)  "  beware  of  evil  icorkers,  beware  of 
the  concision,  (i.  e.  of  those  who  insist  on  continuing 
circumcision  in  the  flesh,  though  we  are  circumcised 
with  christian  circumcision,  which  is  baptism, )jror  we 
are  the  circumcision."  As  if  the  Apostle  would  say, 
though  to  obtain  a  title  to  the  blessings  promised  in 

quiry  we  have  in  the  same  writer,  (Frey  p.  54,  55.)  when  refer- 
ring  to  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  he  remarks,  "There  was  some  similarity 
between  circumcision  and  baptism  ;  and  some  infer  that  there- 
fore baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision.  We  know  too 
there  was  some  similarity  between  Noah's  ark  and  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  :  do  any  of  our  brethren  therefore  believe  that  bap- 
tism is  come  in  place  of  Noah's  ark .'"  Such  strokes  may  do  to 
catch  the  inconsiderate  ;  but  they  weigh  nothing  with  sober  in- 
quirers after  truth.  The  difference  between  the  two  cases  is 
wide.  Noah's  ark,  though  an  emblem  of  the  shelter  found  for 
the  church  in  Christ,  with  whom  baptism  brings  her  members 
into  visible  connexion,  was  no  ordinance  of  the  church  :  but 
circumcision  and  baptism  are  two  ordinances  of  God's  appoint- 
ment ;  the  former  ceasing  as  soon  as  the  latter  was  instituted  ; 
the  latter  denoting  the  same  things,  substantially,  that  the  for- 
mer did  ;  and  the  latter  called  in  Scripture,  by  the  name  of  the 
former  ;  for  baptism  is  by  Paul  expressly  called  circumcision  ;  but 
Peter  never  so  calls  Noah's  ark.  If  baptism  be  called  christian 
drcumcision,  plainly  it  holds  the  same  place  in  the  christian 
church,  that  circumcision  did  in  the  Jewish.  It  is  the  seal  of 
Qod'i  covenant  substituted  in  place  of  circumcision. 


INFANT  BAPTISif.  OO 

the  covenant,  its  seal,  (which  was  circumcision,)  must 
be  affixed  to  us ;  yet  the  bloody  rite  is  no  longer  ne- 
cessary, for  gospel  circumcision  has  been  applied  to 
us  in  our  baptism  ;  we  are  theretbre,  the  circumcision  ; 
the  church,  sealed  with  that  ordinance  appointed 
under  the  gospel  instead  of  circumcision  ;  the  chris- 
lian  circumcision,  which  is  baptism.  Avoid,  then,  the 
concision ;  those  who  would  impose  on  you  a  second 
circumcision,  rendered  needless  by  the  first.  This 
passage  derives  its  whole  point  from  the  truth  that 
baptism  is  the  christian  circumcision,  the  gospel  seal 
of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  But  to  the  admission  of 
this  substitution  it  is  objected. 

1st.  The  Jews  who  were  converted  to  the  gospel 
faith  were  baptized,  though  they  had  been  previously 
circumcised,  which  would  seem  to  imply  that  baptism 
was  not  appointed  a  substitute  for  circumcision. 

True  it  is  that  circumcised  Jews,  on  embracing 
Christianity,  were  baptized ;  but  the  conclusion  does 
not  follow.  When  they  were  circumcised,  circum- 
cision was  the  proper  initiatory  rite  of  the  church  ; 
when  by  God's  authority  circumcision  was  laid  aside, 
and  baptism  appointed,  they  submitted  of  course  to 
this  new  mode  of  initiation.  Had  they  not  been  re. 
quired  to  receive  baptism,  it  would  have  shown  that 
baptism  had  not  superseded  the  old  rite.  A  new 
ordinance  was  now  substhuted  in  place  of  an  old,  by 
the  head  of  the  church  :  had  they  refused  submission 
to  this  new  law,  on  the  ground  of  their  compliance 
with  the  former,  this  would  have  been  rebeUion  that 
must  have  cast  them  out  of  God's  church,  as  it  did 
the  unbeUeving  Jews.     Abraham  was  a  member  of 


56  INFAKT  SAPTISM. 

God's  church,  before  circumcision  was  made  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  ;  yet  he  received  circumcision,  just  as  if, 
before,  he  had  been  an  unbeliever,  no  way  connected 
with  the  church.  As  members  of  God's  church,  cir- 
cumcised Jews  were  bound  to  obey  the  laws  of  the 
church  ;  and  when  new  truths  were  revealed,  and 
new  ordinances  appointed,  they  must  believe  the  for- 
mer, and  submit  to  the  latter.  It  may  as  well  be 
argued  that  the  Lord's  supper  is  not  substituted  for 
the  passover,  because  they  who  had  partaken  of  the 
passover,  sat  down  to  the  supper,  and  yet  often  cele- 
brated, afterwards,  the  Jewish  passover.     Also, 

It  is  objected,  2dly.  Timothy  was  circumcised  after  he 
had  been  baptized;  surely  this  shows  the  substitution 
contended  for  is  not  true,  Act.  xvi.  3. 

I  answer,  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  Timothy 
ever  was  baptized.  He  was  young,  the  son  of  a 
Greek  or  heathen  man.  Paul  found  him  well  instruct- 
ed in  the  Scriptures,  and  pious.  Designing  to  take 
him  with  him  and  employ  him  in  gospel  labours,  on  a 
profession  of  his  faith  he  received  him  into  the  church, 
initiating  him  by  circumcision  instead  of  baptism,  (on 
account  of  the  strong  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  whose 
souls  he  would  benefit ;)  applying,  in  this  case,  the  old 
seal,  instead  of  the  new.  The  case  of  Timothy, 
therefore,  furnishes  evidence  in  favour  of  the  same- 
ness of  baptism  and  circumcision,  not  against  it ; 
since  it  shows,  that  althoiigh  baptism  is  now  the  pro- 
per ordinance,  yet  the  administration  of  circumcision, 
as  of  old,  was  still  tolerated  in  certain  cases. 

It  is  objected,  3dly.  This  substitution  cannot  be  true, 
for  women  are  baptized,  but  were  never  circumcised. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  57 

Tiic  answer  is  obvious,  the  nature  of  the  ancient 
ordinance  forbade  its  application  to  them  :  but  they 
were  always  considered  as  included  in  the  male  head, 
and  circumcised  with  him  ;  for  it  was  expressly  said 
''  no  uncircumcised  person  shall  eat  of  the  passover  ;" 
Exod.  xii.  48.  yet  women  ate  of  it  :  which  shows, 
undeniably,  that  they  were  regarded  as  circumcised 
persons,  and  as  such  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of 
the  covenant. 

It  is  objected,  4thly,  If  haptism  he  really  substi- 
tuted for  circumcision,  how  comes  it  that  when  the  churches 
•rent  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  inquire  whether  Christians  ought, 
to  keep  the  law  and  be  circumcised,  the  Apostles  in  an- 
swer said  nothing  about  this  substitution  ? — Acts,  xv. 
2'2 — 30.  If  they  had  only  told  them,  baptism  is  novj 
come  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  it  would  have  settled 
the  whole  dispute  at  once  and  for  ever.  But  this  objec- 
tion,  formidable  as  it  is  in  appearance,  has  no  real 
force.  If  the  Apostles  had  returned  such  an  answer, 
it  would  have  met  only  half  the  inquiry,  which  re- 
spected the  whole  ceremonial  law,  not  circumcision 
alone.  They  gave  a  wiser,  because  a  more  appropri- 
ate answer  :  "  It  seemeth  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
to  us,  i6  lay  on  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  neces- 
sary things^^ — Acts  xv.  28  :  then  declaring  circum- 
cision and  all  mere  legal  rites  no  longer  needful :  and 
from  this  very  answer,  the  substitution  here  spoken  of 
might  be  fairly  inferred.  In  its  proper  place,  this 
substitution  is  plainly  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  when 
baptism  is  called  christian  circumcision.  (Col.  ii.  11, 
12)  and  the  christian  church  is  designated  the  circum. 
cision,  Phil,  iii,  3, 


58  INFANT  LAPTISSl. 

To  deny  the  doctrine,  because  not  expressly  as- 
serted in  that  one  particular  place,  is  hardly  consistent 
with  the  reverence  due  to  the  divine  Author  of  the 
Scriptures.  So  satisfactory  to  the  ancients  was  the 
evidence  of  this  substitution,  that  Justin  Martyr  (who 
flourished  about  a  century  after  the  Apostles)  tells  us 
expressly,  that  baptism  is  to  the  christian  church,  the 
same  thing  that  circumcision  was  to  the  Jews  ;  and  he 
makes  particular  mention  of  some  who  had  been  bap- 
tized in  infancy. 

Let  us  then  bring  the  whole  train  of  argument  in 
review  before  us.  The  church  of  God  hcfs  continued 
identically  the  same,  notwithstanding  the  change  of 
dispensation  :  she  has  always  applied  a  discriminating 
mark  to  her  members,  in  circumcision  of  old,  in  bap- 
tism now.  As  circumcision  was  formerly  the  initiatory 
ordinance  of  the  church,  so  baptism  now  is :  baptism 
now  denotes  the  same  inward  purification,  of  which 
circumcision  was  formerly  the  appointed  token  :  cir- 
cumcision  was  abolished,  and  much  about  the  same 
time,  baptism  (answering  the  same  ends)  was  appointed 
by  divine  authority.  Further,  since  the  church  is 
organized  under  the  very  covenant  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  formerly  the  seal ;  that  rite  being 
laid  aside,  if  baptism  be  not  its  substitute,  the  church 
is  now  organized  under  a  covenant  destitute  of  a 
seal ;  while  Paul  reasons  from  baptism,  just  as  if  it 
were  the  seal.  Moreover,  the  Lord's  supper,  being 
substituted  for  the  Jewish  passover,  analogy  would 
seem  to  require  that  baptism,  an  ordinance  prior  to  the 
former,  must  be  a  substitute  for  circumcision,  which 
was  an  indispensable  preparation  for  the  latter.     And 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  M 

Still  further,  the  Holy  Ghost  styles  baptism  the  cliristian 
circumcision,  and  calls  the  christian  charch  the  civ- 
cumcision,  just  as  the  Old  Testament  church  was  called 
the  circumcision  ;  and  afhrms  that  her  members  need 
no  Jewish  circumcision  to  entitle  them  to  a  participa- 
tion in  the  benefits  of  the  great  Abrahamic  covenant, 
because  they  are  already  circumcised  in  being  bap- 
tized. Each  of  these  arguments  has  its  weight ; 
several  of  them  are  individually  strong,  and  nearly 
satisfactory.  But  the  evidence  of  this  cheering  truth, 
hke  that  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  is  cumu- 
lative ;  it  proceeds  step  by  step  ;  and  the  effect  of  the 
whole  combined,  is  quite  satisfactory.  The  conclusion 
is  clear  and  undeniable. — "  Baptism  is  to  the  gospel 
church,  what  circumcision  was  to  the  Jewish — a  seal  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant ;''  and  few  are  the  truths  borne 
out  by  clearer  or  more  copious  evidence. 

Some  have  said,  show  us  a  single  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture which  asserts  that  baptism  is  a  substitute  for 
circumcision,  and  we  will  believe  it  ;  not  otherwise  I 
I  answer  :  the  substitution  in  question  is  asserted  as  a 
truth  of  revelation.  Like  any  other  truth,  it  may  be 
shown  in  any  of  the  various  modes  of  reasoning  em- 
ployed  to  gather  truth  from  the  sacred  oracles.  To 
demand  an  express  assertion  of  it  in  so  many  words, 
is  an  impious  attempt  to  prescribe  to  God  in  what  way 
he  shall  make  known  his  will.  The  Sadducees  might 
as  well  have  demanded  of  Christ  an  express  assertion 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  in  the  books  of 
Moses.  The  Saviour  proved  it  by  inferential  reason- 
ing ;  and  blamed  the  Sadducees  for  not  having  inferred 
it  also.     And  by  many  and   various  proofs  we  iiave 


60 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  substitution  of  baptism 
for  circumcision,  is  scriptural  and  true  :  and  if  so,  as 
the  children  of  believers  were,  of  old,  admitted  to  the 
church  by  circumcision,  so  must  they  now  be  admitted 
by  baptism.  For  if  it  be  right  to  admit  them  at  all,  it 
must  be  done  either  by  baptizing  them,  or  without  it. 
But  none  can  be  admitted  into  the  christian  church 
without  baptism  :  therefore,  to  admit  children  to  mem- 
bership in  the  visible  gospel  church,  they  must  be 
baptized. 

A  5th  argument  for  infant  baptism,  is  found  in  the 
language  of  Christ,  the  conduct  of  the  Apostles,  and 
various  allusions  found  in  the  epistles. 

On  one  occasion  our  Lord  said,  suffer  little  children 
to  come  unto  me,  and  forhid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven — Matth.  xix.  14.  Oh,  but  Christ 
did  not  baptize  these  children,  say  some,  he  only 
blessed  them,  so  that  this  passage  of  scripture  has  no- 
thing at  all  to  do  with  baptism  !  True,  our  Lord  did 
not  baptize  these  children  ;  but  he  did  more  than  bless 
them  :  he  declared  that  children  must  not  be  kept  from 
Christ ;  and  the  reason  he  assigns  is,  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  !  If  this  mean  the  church  in  glory, 
then,  since  infants  are  fit  to  be  admitted  there,  whv 
not  to  the  church  on  earth  ?  But  the  phrase,  kingdom 
ofJieaven,  usually  denotes  the  visible  church  ;  and  sucli 
appears  to  be  its  meaning  here.  If  so,  then  in  this 
passage  Christ  does  declare  that  the  visible  gospel 
church  includes  infants,  (these  were  infants,  ver\ 
young  children,  I3^£cp'>],  such  as  he  could  take  in  his 
arms — Mark,  ix.  56,  and  Matt.  xix.  13 — 15,)  which 
certainly  favours  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  ;  for. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  61 

how  can  those  be  of  the  church,  wlio  liuve  no  riglit  to 
be  baptized  ? 

We  do  not  build  infant  baptism  on  this  insulated 
passage,  (as  some  of  its  opposers  would  insinuate  :) 
but  when  we  find,  where  no  immediate  reference  to 
baptism  could  have  been  intended,  such  incidental  re- 
marks so  plainly  falling  in  with  our  views  of  baptism, 
where  is  the  absurdity,  or  the  uealness,  of  pointing  it 
out,  as  "  conjirmation  strong,''^  that  we  are  right  ? 

The  conduct  of  the  Apostles  in  baptizing  whole  house- 
holds at  once,  better  accords  with  the  views  of  those 
who  practise,  than  of  those  who  reject  infant  baptism. 
When  we  find  recorded  the  baptism  of  Lydia's  house- 
hold on  her  believing,  and  of  the  jailer's  on  his  be- 
lieving, no  hint  is  given  of  any  thing  extraordinary  in 
these  cases.  The  record  is  made  just  as  if  it  were 
the  ordinary  custom  of  the  i\postles,  on  baptizing  the 
head  of  a  family,  to  baptize  with  him  his  whole  house- 
hold of  children.  But  now,  in  the  accounts  received 
from  baptist  missionaries  to  the  heathen  in  our  day, 
do  we  ever  hear  of  similar  baptisms  of  whole  house- 
holds ?  How  long  might  we  wait,  before  the  excellent 
missionaries  of  that  denomination  would  send  us  intelli- 
gence, that  on  preaching  the  word  in  such  a  place, 
such  a  man  believed  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his 
household,  straightway  ?  If  a  case  occurred,  in  which, 
consistently  with  their  views,  they  could  baptize  a 
whole  household  at  once,  how  explicit  would  be  their 
statements  to  show  that  each  member  of  that  family 
professed  faith  in  Christ !  Equally  explicit,  we  should 
suppose,  would  be  the  statements  furnished  in  the  New 
Testament  on  this  point,  to  guard  against  mistakes,  if 
6 


62  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

after  believers  in  the  true  God  had,  for  so  many  ages, 
been  permitted  to  consecrate  their  children  to  God  in 
a  solemn  religious  ordinance,  they  were  permitted  to 
do  so  no  more.  The  several  accounts  found  in  the 
New  Testament  of  the  baptism  of  households,  without 
any  hint  of  such  restriction  to  believers  alone,  does, 
therefore,  strongly  corroborate  the  opinion  of  those  who 
hold  infant  baptism  to  be  scriptural. 

But  again  :  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  we  find 
passages  sustaining  these  sentiments.  Thus  Paul  tells 
us  he  baptized  the  household  of  Stephanus — 1  Cor.  i. 
16  :  and  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  vii.  14)  he  speaks 
of  children  in  a  manner  accordant  with  the  sentiment 
expressed  concerning  them  by  our  Lord — ^^  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.^'  He  supposes  the  case  of  a 
family  in  which  one  parent  alone  is  a  believer.  The 
children  of  parents,  both  of  whom  are  heathen,  are 
manifestly  heathen,  unconnected  with  the  church. 
Where  both  parents  are  believers,  their  offspring  are 
children  of  the  covenant,  and  entitled  to  the  privilege 
of  consecration  to  God.  But  if  one  parent  be  an  un. 
believer,  the  faith  of  the  other  parent  affects  the  un- 
believing parent  so  far,  that  the  offspring  of  both  are 
holy ;  and  the  unbelieving  parent  is  so  far  to  be  re- 
garded as  holy,  that  he  may,  by  this  marriage,  be  the 
parent  of  children  who  shall  be  consecrated  to  God. 
Dr.  Gill,  and  most  baptist  writers  with  him,  maintain 
that  the  holiness  here  spoken  of,  respects  the  lawful, 
uess  of  the  marriage,  and  the  legitimacy  of  the  children. 
The  answer  is  obvious.  The  word  is  never  known  to 
be  used  in  that  sense  elsewhere  ;  besides,  it  would  be 
making  the  Apostle  argue  the  lawfulness  of  the  mar- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  63 

nage  from  the  legitimacy  of  tlic  children  ;  which  were, 
in  fact,  proving  a  thing  hy  itself! 

The  word  holy  is  often  employed  by  the  New 
Testament  writers  as  equivalent  to  clean :  to  denote 
what  is,  or  may  be,  consecrated  to  God  :  unclean,  what 
may  not.  So  in  Peter's  vision  on  the  house-top,  by 
the  words,  "  what  God  hath  cleansed,  that  call  not  thou 
common  nor  unclean'^ — Acts  x.  15,  he  was  taught  that 
gentiles  migiit  be  admitted  to  the  gospel  church  and 
its  ordinances.  They  were  no  longer  unclean,  or  to 
be  debarred  from  those  ordinances. 

Paul  teaches  also,  that  the  faith  of  even  one  parent, 
takes  away  from  the  unbelieving  parent,  that  unclean- 
ness  which  would  else  debar  his  children  from  being 
consecrated  to  God  ;  and  from  the  children,  that  un- 
cleanness,  which,  without  the  faith  of  one  parent,  the 
unbelief  of  the  other  would  entail  upon  them,  to  de- 
prive them  of  that  right.  Yet  it  by  no  means  follows, 
that  if,  in  this  passage,  holiness  in  the  children  means 
a  right  to  baptism,  holiness  in  the  unbelieving  partner 
must  imply  a  similar  right.  The  sanctification  here 
spoken  of,  is  a  meetness  for  the  purposes  appertaining 
to  each.  In  the  unbelieving  parent,  to  be  a  channel 
through  whom  the  children  may  receive  unimpaired, 
for  the  believing  parents'  sake,  the  right  of  admission 
to  the  privileges  of  the  covenant :  and  in  the  children, 
to  be  personally  consecrated  to  God  in  the  initiatory 
ordinance  of  his  church.  Another  interpretation  has 
recently  been  given  to  this  text,*  in  which  no  little 


•  Dagg'a  note  in  Pengilly's  Scriptural  Guide  to  Baptism. 


64  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

labour  and  some  ingenuity  have  been  employed  to 
show,  that  in  this  passage,  holy  means  merely,  no? 
liable  to  pollute  ;  or  to  impart  ceremonial  uncleanness. 
There  is,  however,  one  small  objection  to  this  inter- 
pretation ;  which  is,  that  it  deprives  the  Apostle's  lan- 
guage of  ail  meaning  :  it  makes  the  holiness  he  speaks 
of,  mean  just  nothing  at  all.  For,  under  the  gospel, 
no  such  defilement  is  contracted  by  intercourse  with 
any  man,  heathen  or  infidel,  more  than  with  a  Chris- 
tian. And  if  this  be  all  the  Apostle  here  teaches,  that 
tlie  holiness  of  the  unbelieving  husband  of  a  believing 
wife,  consists  in  not  polluting'tlie  believing  parent  or 
their  children,  with  ceremonial  uncleanness,  then  this 
iioliness  is  no  more  than  what  the  most  degraded  pa- 
gans  possess ;  and  if  so,  it  is  really  an  unmeaning 
sentence — "  Thfi  nnhelifiving  wifft  is  sanctified  by  the 
believing  husband,  else  were  your  children  unclean, 
but  now  are  they  holy" — for,  on  this  supposition,  the 
parties  have  no  more  influence  on  each  other  than  on 
any  other  persons  on  the  globe,  or  any  other  persons 
on  them.  The  only  rational  interpretation  is  that  of 
federal  holiness,  as  the  people  of  God,  admitted,  (the 
unbelieving  parent  in  his  children,  the  children  for 
themselves)  to  an  interest  in  the  covenant  and  its  pri- 
vileges. If  so,  this  passage  fully  accords  with  the 
views  of  those  who  hold  to  infant  baptism. 

The  language  of  our  Lord,  the  conduct  of  his  apostles, 
and  various  allusions  found  in  the  epistles,  do,  therefore, 
all  accord  with  the  doctrine  of  infant  church-member- 
ship, and  consequently,  of  infant  baptism.  So  also  does. 
Lastly,  The  testimony  of  church  history  as  to  the 
practice  of  early  Christians. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  65 

In  treating  of  this  topic,  I  must  necessarily  take  my 
authorities  from  others,  on  whose  judgment  and  ho- 
nesty reliance  may  safely  be  placed  ;  since  the  works 
of  the  early  christian  fathers  are  now  rarely  to  be 
found  but  in  the  libraries  of  public  institutions  ;  to 
which  few,  comparatively,  can  have  access  :  yet  are 
they  sufficiently  accessible  to  every  inquirer,  to  render 
the  detection  of  imposition  certain. 

Justin  Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, tells  us  of  some  of  both  sexes,  then  sixty  or 
seventy  years  old,  who  had  been  made  disciples  in 
childhood  :  doubtless  he  means  baptized.  He  also 
speaks  of  baptism  as  having  come  in  place  of  circum- 
cision, and  to  be  received  instead  of  it. 

Irenaeus,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  the  com- 
panion of  the  apostle  John,  and  who  was  born  before 
the  close  of  the  first  century,  tells  us  of  infants  who 
were  born  again  unto  God.  By  horn  again,  Irenaeus, 
with  nearly  all  the  early  fathers,  means  baptized :  this, 
no  one  acquainted  with  church  history  will  deny.  He 
testifies,  therefore,  to  the  fact,  that  then  persons  were 
baptized  in  infancy ;  and  whether  his  views  of  the 
efficacy  of  baptism  be  right  or  wrong,  his  testimony  to 
the  fact  of  infant  baptism  remains  unimpeached. 

Tertullian,  about  a  hundred  years  after  the  Apostles, 
speaks  of  the  custom  of  baptizing  young  children  :  he 
advises  to  delay  it,  on  account  of  the  temptations  to 
which  young  people  are  exposed  :  for  Tertullian  evi- 
dently  had  an  idea,  that  sins  committed  after  baptism 
are  more'  heinous  than  before.  But  his  whole  manner 
of  speaking  of  infant  baptism,  shows  that  it  was  then 
the  prevailing  practice.  If  Tertullian  could  have 
6* 


66  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

shown  that  infant  baptism  was  unscriptural,  not  war- 
ranted by  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  he  would  un- 
questionably have  done  so. 

Origen,  a  very  learned  christian  writer,  born  to- 
wards  the  close  of  the  second  century,  declares,  '^ac- 
cording to  the  usage  of  the  church,  baptism  is  given 
even  to  infants. ^^  He  expressly  asserts,  that  the  cus- 
torn  was  received  from  the  Apostles. 

Some  of  our  baptist  brethren,  I  CEinnot  but  think, 
employ  unfairness  in  the  use  they  make  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  early  Christians.  Thus  one  asserts,* 
"  Origen  is  the  first  who  declares  infant  baptism  founded 
on  apostolic  authority."  Perhaps,  literally,  it  is  true, 
that  Origen  is  the  first  who  makes  this  formal  decla- 
ration. But  the  manner  in  which  this  is  stated,  is 
such  as  to  leave  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  the 
incautious,  that  Origen,  in  the  third  century,  is  the  first 
who  mentions  infant  baptism  ;  whence  the  conclusion 
is  easily  drawn,  if  infant  baptism  is  not  mentioned  be- 
fore the  third  century  after  Christ,  it  must  be  a  new 
thing  ;  it  is  an  innovation.  But  this  conclusion  is  false. 
The  truth  is,  infant  baptism  is  very  plainly  alluded  to, 
and  expressly  mentioned,  very  soon  after  the  times  of 
the  Apostles,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  it  was 
a  general  custom  in  the  churches.  If  infant  baptism 
had  been  a  new  thing,  unknown  in  the  apostolic 
churches,  it  is  utterly  incredible  that  no  where  should 
there  have  been  found  any  one  to  lift  up  his  voice 


+  Frey'o  Essays,  first  edition,  p.  69.  The  fact  is,  that  the  very 
first  mention  found  of  baptism  in  christian  writers,  shows  that 
it  was  then  the  prevailing  practice. 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


07 


against  it.     And  yet,  Pelagius,  ill  the  fourth  century, 
whose  peculiar  sentiments  the  denial  of  intant  baptism, 
would  have  greatly  countenanced,  could  that  denial 
have  been  safely  made,  unhesitatingly  declares,  "  Men 
calumniate  me,  by  charging  me  with  a  denial  of  infant 
baptism.     7  have  never  heard  infant  baptism  denied 
even  by  the  worst  heretics,''     Pelagius  was  not  only  a 
very  profound  scholar,  and  a  very  acute  rcasoner,  but 
he   had  also    travelled  extensively   through   Britain, 
(4aul,  Italy,  Africa,  Egypt,  and  Palestine  ;  yet  he  so- 
lemnly  declared  he  had  never  heard  infant  baptism 
denied.*     Who  then  shall  decide  what  was  the  primi- 
tive practice,  if  these  christian  writers,  from  almost 
the  time  of  the  Apostles,  till  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  shall  not  do  it  ?     They,  as  with  one  voice, 
assure  us,  that  from  the  first,  infant  baptism  was  prac- 
tised,  and  continued  to  prevail  :  not  a  single  denial, 
not  a  single  dissenting  voice,  from  those  early  ages, 
has  come  down  to  us.     All  this  is  utterly  inexplicable, 


*  The  writer  has  examined  the  "Letters  of  David  and  John," 
containing  animadversions  on  Dr.  Woods'  Lectures  on  Infant 
Baptism;  and  while  he  admires  the  excellent  spirit  pervading 
that  production,  he  cannot  but  think  that  injustice  is  done,  unin- 
tentionally he  believes,  to  some  of  the  writers  there  alluded  to, 
and  to  the  subject  discussed.  Whatever  errors  may  have  been 
held  by  some  of  the  ancient  fathers,  they  surely  are  competent 
witnesses  in  relation  to  facts.  If  abuses  had  already  crept  into 
the  church,  and  the  ordinances  were  perverted  by  admixture  with 
these  abuses,  that  is  surely  no  reason  why,  if  we  receive  their 
testimony  as  to  the  suhjeds  to  whom  those  ordinances  were  ap- 
plied,  wc  should  perpetuate  also  the  abuses  into  which  they  had 
fallen. 


68  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

unless  it  had  been  customary  in  the  churches  planted 
by  the  Apostles  themselves,  to  recognise  the  interest 
of  infants  in  God's  covenant  with  his  people,  and  re- 
ceive  them  into  the  church  by  baptizing  them ;  a 
custom  which  prevailed  universally  in  the  church  till 
a  little  before  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  when 
one  sect  of  the  Waldenses  declared  against  infant 
baptism,  because  they  believed  them  incapable  of 
salvation  ;  yet  the  great  body  of  that  people  rejected 
this  new  tenet.  This  opinion  was  again  embraced  by 
the  Mennonists,  or  Anabaptists,  a  fanatical  sect  that 
arose  in  Germany  about  A.  D.  1530.  The  denial  of 
infant  baptism  was  never  heard  of  in  the  christian 
church,  (saving  only  by  some  wild  enthusiasts,  who 
rejected  nearly  the  whole  gospel,)  till  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury  ;  and  that  tenet  never  spread  beyond  the  territory 
of  the  Waldenses,  till  the  sixteenth  century.  {See 
Dwight,  Vol.  IV.  p.  337.) 

Since,  then,  it  has  been  shown  that  God  had  a  true 
church  on  earth  before  the  coming  of  our  Lord,  to 
which  many  valuable  privileges  were  secured  by  the 
Abrahamic  covenant ;  that  that  covenant  being  still  in 
force,  the  christian  church  is  but  a  continuance  of  the 
Jewish  ;  that  infant  membership,  having  been  once  di- 
vinely  established  in  the  church,  and  never  laid  aside, 
must  still  be  in  force ;  and  that,  under  the  gospel,  baptism 
has  been  appointed  as  a  substitute  for  circumcision ;  the 
conclusion  is  abundantly  plain,  that  Infants  must  now 
be  baptized,  as  of  old  they  icere  circumcised.  A  con- 
clusion which  is  fully  sustained  by  the  language  of  our 
Lord  respecting  little  children  ;  by  the  baptism  of 
households,  as  recorded  in  the  New  Testament ;  and 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  00 

by  the  directions  given  to  tlie  Corintliians  respecting 
those  children,  one  only  of  whose  parents  was  a  be- 
liever :  a  conclusion  that  is  further  corroborated  by 
the  unequivocal  testimony  of  christian  writers  relative 
to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  churches,  during  the 
first  four  centuries  ; — all  showing,  that  the  refusal  of 
the  Waldenses  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  of  the 
Mennonists  and  Anabaptists,  in  Germany,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  to  baptize  infants,  was  an  unheard-of 
and  unscriptural  innovation,  which  is  not  rendered 
right  or  scriptural  by  its  having  been  more  extensively 
spread  during  the  last  three  hundred  years  ;  nor  by  the 
general  excellence  of  that  body  of  Christians  who  now 
maintain  it,  nor  by  their  strict  adherence  to  scripture 
in  other  respects. 

I  proceed  then  to  notice  the  objections  usually 
urged  against  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants. 

It  is  objected,  first,  Baptism  is  a  positive  institution. 
Of  all  positive  institutions,  (the  obligation  to  observe 
which  rests,  not  on  the  nature  of  things,  but  solely  on 
the  authority  of  the  lawgiver,)  the  law  of  the  institution 
is  the  only  rule  of  obedience.  Hence,  whoever  has  a 
right  to  a  positive  ordinance,  must  be  expressly  mentioned 
as  having  that  right.  But  infants  are  not  so  mentioned 
with  respect  to  baptism  ;  therefore  infants  are  not  to 
be  baptized. 

If  this  argument  have  any  real  force,  it  will  exclude 
all  females  from  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper  ; 
since  there  is  no  mention  made  of  females  admitted 
to  this  ordinance,  either  in  the  words  of  the  institution, 
or  in  any  part  of  the  New  Testament.  Their  right  can 
indeed  be  clearly  made  out ;  but  it  is  done  by  inferen- 


70  INFANT  BAPTISM 

tial  reasoning,  which,  if  this  objection  be  valid,  is 
completely  excluded.  Yet  in  baptist  churches  they  are 
admitted,  just  as  they  are  in  others,  though  there  is  no 
warrant  for  it  in  the  law  of  the  institution,  nor  any 
command  for  it,  nor  any  clear  example  of  it,  in  all  the 
New  Testament.  The  truth  is,  this  objection  is  so- 
phistical. The  authority  of  God  is  indeed  the  sole 
foundation  of  a  positive  ordinance,  but  the  mere  words 
of  the  institution  are  not  the  only  law.  The  whole 
word  of  God  is  that  law,  and  whatever  can  be  gathered 
from  any  part  of  the  whole  Bible  respecting  any  posi- 
tive institution,  is  the  law  of  that  institution  :  it  is  God's 
revealed  will  respecting  it.  When  light  has  thus  been 
collected  from  various  parts  of  the  lively  oracles,  and 
brought  to  one  focus  for  the  elucidation  of  any  institu- 
tion,  we  are  not  adding  to,  nor  taking  from,  nor.  any 
way  altering  a  positive  institution.  All  the  show  of 
argument  which  is  sometimes  exhibited  on  the  subject 
of  positive  institutions,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The 
most  that  it  can  do,  is  to  show  that  Christ's  authority  is 
our  only  guide.  We  have  no  right  to  set  up  an  insti- 
tution not  appointed  in  Scripture  ;*nor  to  neglect,  or 
alter,  after  our  own  fancy,  any  one  that  is  appointed. 
It  shows,  that  from  the  Scriptures  alone  we  must  gather 
direction  ;  but  it  does  not  show,  that  from  the  mere 
words  used  at  the  time  of  instituting  the  ordinance,  nor 
even  from  scriptural  examples  alone,  we  are  to  be 
guided,  to  the  exclusion  of  inferential  reasoning. 

It  has  been  said,  "  the  law  of  a  positive  institution 
must  be  so  plain  and  explicit  as  to  stand  in  no  need  of 
any  other  assistance  to  understand  it,  but  the  mere 
letter  of  the  law :  and  that  it  is  blasphemy  to  suppose 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  71 

that  Christ  delivered  his  mind  in  ambiguous  words. ^* 
\{  the  law  licre  spoken  of,  denote  the  whole  word  of 
God,  it  is  substantially  true  ;  though  the  expression,  the 
mere  letter,  must  be  taken  in  a  modified  sense  :  but  if, 
as  was  doubtless  designed,  the  mere  words  of  the  insti- 
tution be  intended  by  that  law,  it  is  not  true  ;  and  the 
history  of  the  Apostles  shows  that  it  is  not.     In  the 
commission  to  baptize,  Christ,  as  his  apostles  under- 
stood him  at  the  time,  said   nothing  about  baptizing 
Gentiles.     The  book  of  Acts  shows,  that  the  Apostles 
understood  the  charge,  "  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,"  <Sfc.  to  mean  only  Jews,  as  parts  of  the  different 
nations  among  whom  they  lived,  and  whose  languages 
they  spoke.     But  when  they  found  Gentiles  believing, 
and  on  Gentiles  the  Holy  Ghost  poured  out,  they  ga- 
thered, not  from  the  words  of  the  institution,  but  by 
inference  from  these  facts,  that  Gentiles,  on  believing, 
were  fit  subjects  for  baptism.     In  like  manner,  if  we 
take  the  law  of  the  institution,  in  the  only  proper  sense, 
for  the  scriptures  of  truth,  we  have,  in  the  very  law  of 
the  institution,  what  is  equivalent  to  an  express  warrant 
for  the  baptism  of  infants,  when  we  are  told,  that  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  (which  respected  infants  with 
their  parents)  is  now  come  on  the  Gentiles — Gal.  iii. 
14 :  and  when  we  are  further  assured,  that  baptism 
is  christian  circumcision — Col.  ii.  11,  12.     If  baptism 
had  not  been  appointed,  and  the  Apostles  had  been 
commEoided,  "  circumcise  all  nations,"  unquestionably 
they  would  have  circumcised  infants  as  well  as  adults, 
unless  expressly  prohibited  ;  because  they  had  always 

♦Frey,  p.  13,  14. 


72  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

seen  children  dedicated  to  God  in  this  ordinance  ;  and 
when  commanded,  "  baptize  all  nations  ;"  and  one  of 
the  apostles  declares  that  baptism  is  christian  circum- 
cision— Col.  ii.  11,  12;  what  room  is  left  for  doubt, 
(no  direction  being  given  against  baptizing  infants,) 
that  the  Apostles  did  baptize  infants,  just  as  they  would, 
in  the  former  case,  have  circumcised  them  ? 

An  objection,  then,  which  would  vacate  at  the  sacra- 
mental board  the  seat  of  every  female  communicant : 
which  would  condemn  the  conduct  of  Peter,  and  the 
other  apostles  ;  an  objection,  which  derives  even  its 
show  of  force  from  a  subtle  sophism,  is  not  very  for- 
midable. 

A  second  objection  is,  The  Scriptures  require  faith 
and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism ;  but  infants  have 
not  faith  nor  repentance^  therefore  infants  are  not  proper 
subjects  of  baptism. 

This  argument,  like  the  former,  overshoots  the  mark, 
and  proves  too  much.  If,  because  faith  is  sometimes 
placed  before  baptism,  as  when  it  is  said,  he  that  he. 
lieveth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved — Mark  xvi.  16  ; 
infants  must  be  excluded  from  baptism,  because  they 
are  incapable  of  faith  ;  then,  for  the  same  reason,  be- 
cause in  another  place  it  is  said,  (2  Thess.  iii.  10) 
'*  If  any  man  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat,"  it 
follows  undeniably,  that  sustenance  must  be  refused 
to  the  sick,  and  to  all  infants,  because  they  are  inca- 
pable  of  labour ;  and  the  command  is  explicit,  requiring 
labour  before  a  person  may  eat.  This  reasoning,  every 
one  sees  to  be  absurd  in  the  case  of  sustenance,  and 
it  is  equally  absurd  in  relation  to  baptism. 

It  follows  also,  if  the  argument  urged  in  this  objection 
be  valid,  that  all  dying  in  infancy  will  be  eternally 


INFANT    BAPTWM. 


73 


lost ;  for  it  is  said,  •*  He  that  believcth,  shall  be  saved, 
he  tliat  beheveth  not,  shall  be  damned."     Faith  is  here 
placed  before  salvation  ;  the  want  of  it  is  expressly 
declared  to  entail  perdition  :  so  that  by  this  reasoning, 
all  who  die  before  ihey  become  capable  of  believing, 
are  inevitably  lost.     Nay,  if  some  who  have  not  been 
baptized  in  infiincy,  should  in  early  life,  repent  and 
believe,  but  should  die  before  they  could  receive  bap. 
tism,  this  argument  would  consign  them  too,  to  perdi- 
tion ;  for  the  Scripture  says  "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved"— Mark  xvi.  16 :  and  althougli 
in  other  places  faith  alone  is  mentioned  as  a  prerequi- 
site to  salvation,  yet  inasmuch  as  baptism  is  once,  at 
least,  expressly  so  mentioned,  it  must,  like  repentance, 
be  always  understood  as  being  required,  even  though 
not  mentioned.     Moreover,  on  the  ground  assumed  in 
this  objection,  it  would  follow,  that  if,  as  some  main- 
tain,  there  be  but  one  only  scriptural  mode  of  baptism, 
and  that  mode  be  immersion ;  then  all  who  have  not 
been  baptized  by  immersion,  are  not  baptized  at  all ; 
and  not  being  baptized,  must  be  inevitably  lost,  be 
they  never  so  eminently  holy  and  devoted  to  God ;  a 
conclusion  that  would  seal  over  to  destruction  such 
men  as  Owen,  and  Baxter,  and  Brainerd,  and  Henry 
Martyn. 

We  might  as  well  undertake  to  argue,  that  no  man 
can  be  regenerated  till  he  has  been  baptized,  because 
in  John  iii.  5,  we  read,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom  of  God,"  where  water  is  mentioned  before  the 
Spirit ;  as  to  argue,  that  none  but  believers  ought  t© 
7 


74  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

be  baptized,  because  it  is  said,  "  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 

The  truth  is,  this  whole  objection  is  based  on  an 
argument  radically  defective,  because,  like  the  preced- 
ing one,  it  brings  into  the  conclusion,  infants,  with 
whom  the  premises  have  nothing  to  do. 

"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized"  shows,  that  all 
believers  may  be  baptized  :  it  does  not  show  that  no 
others  may  :  "7/*  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thoxi 
mayest,"  respects,  and  it  can  only  respect,  those  capa- 
ble of  exercising  faith,  i.  e.  adults.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  infants,  and  ought  never  to  be  adduced  in  a 
discussion  relating  to  infant  baptism  alone. 

A  3d  objection  is.  There  is  no  scriptural  example  of 
the  baptism  of  any  but  on  their  own  profession  of  faith. 

In  answer,  I  would  remark,  that  the  very  principle 
on  which  this  objection  is  based  is  erroneous  ;  that 
principle  is  the  assumption  that  "  ive  are  not  at  liberty 
to  do  that  for  which  we  have  no  scriptural  example,'^ 
which  is  manifestly  untrue.  We  have  no  scriptural 
example  for  the  admission  of  believing  women  to  the 
Lord's  table  ;  yet  who  doubts  the  propriety  of  admit- 
ting  them  ?  But  if  this  objection  has  any  force,  they 
ought  all  to  be  excluded.  Throughout  the  whole 
New  Testament  can  be  found  no  example  plain  and 
undeniable,  of  a  woman's  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
supper.  I  know  it  has  been  asserted  that  such  exam- 
ple is  found  ;  but  let  it  be  shown  where.  That  such 
example  cannot  be  found,  is  abundantly  plain,  if  it 
were  only  from  the  ridiculous,  and  of  course  abortive 
effort  so  often  made,  to  prove,  that  when  Paul  says, 
let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat,  &c. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  *75 

1  Cor.  xi.  28,  he  does  in  the  term  man  include  wo- 
men !  This  is  sometliing  like  inferential  reasoning 
respecting^  a  positive  institution  ;  and  I  most  cheer- 
fully acknowledge  the  propriety  of  inferential  reason- 
ing respecting  positive  institutions,  and  the  subjects  of 
them,  if  such  reasoning  be  properly  conducted.  But 
reasoning  is  not  producing  a  plain  undeniable  example 
from  the  sacred  record. 

Again,  we  have  no  example  in  Scripture  for  even  the 
baptism  of  any  female  who  is  not  the  head  of  a  house- 
hold. Lydia  was  the-  head  of  a  household  :  and  though 
at  Samaria,  on  the  preaching  of  Philip,  (Acts.  viii.  12.) 
they  were  baptized  both  men  and  women,  how  can  we 
decide  that  any  other  women  than  heads  of  families, 
like  Lydia,  were  among  them  ?  We  may  suppose  so  ; 
we  may  reason,  and  infer  that  it  was  probably  so  ;  but 
this  is  not  producing  a  plain  scriptural  example.  Are 
we  then  to  refuse  baptism  to  single  women,  even  though 
they  give  good  evidence  of  faith  ?  If  the  principle  on 
which  this  and  the  preceding  objection  are  founded  be 
true,  then  no  woman,  however  firm  her  faith  and  exem- 
plary her  life,  can  be  lawfully  baptized,  unless  she  be 
the  head  of  a  household  like  Lydia  ;  and  if  she  be  not 
baptized  she  cannot  be  saved.  This  is  very  much 
like  determining,  with  the  papists,  that  marriage  is  a 
sacrament ;  yea  going  beyond  them,  and  making  it  a 
sacrament  indispensable  to  salvation  ;  a  necessary 
preliminary. 

But,  even  were  the  principle  correct  on  which  this 
objection  rests,  still  the  objection  itself  is  a  gratuitous 
assumption  ;  it  is  in  fact  a  mere  denial  of  one  of  the 
jnain  points  in  debate.     For  if  any  one  of  the  house- 


76*  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

holds  whose  baptism  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  did  contain  children  under  age,  the  objection 
falls  at  once.  This  is  therefore  reduced,  in  great 
measure,  to  a  question  of  probabilities  ;  and  it  is  cer- 
tainly more  probable  that  in  the  four  households  so 
mentioned,  there  should  have  been  persons  too  young 
to  act  for  themselves,  than  that  there  should  not.  The 
history  of  the  baptism  of  whole  households,  when 
nothing  is  said  of  the  faith  of  any  except  of  the  head 
of  that  household,  is  certainly  more  favourable  to  the 
views  of  those  who  practise,  than  of  those  who  denj^ 
infant  baptism. 

The  case  of  the  Philippian  jailer.  Acts.  xvi.  34. 
deserves  examination.  Paul  preached  to  him  and  to 
all  in  his  house ;  but  not  a  word  is  said  of  any  one 
believing,  except  the  jailer  himself;  yet  he  was  bap. 
tized,  he  and  all  his  straightway.  Our  version  reads, 
"  and  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house  /" 
Acts.  xvi.  34;  but  in  the  original  the  participle  believ- 
ing is  singular,  it  relates  only  to  the  jailer  ;  it  can 
relate  to  no  other  :  he  himself  believing,  leaped  for  joy, 
his  family  sympathizing  in  his  joy  ;  for  they  with  him, 
and  as  a  consequence  of  his  professing  faith,  had  been 
admitted  by  baptism,  to  membership  in  the  visible 
church.  If  this  view  of  the  passage  be  correct,  then 
it  is  not  true  that  we  have  no  example  in  Scripture  of 
the  baptism  of  any,  except  on  a  profession  of  their 
own  faith  in  Christ ;  and  the  objection  dies.* 


*  As  to  the  phrase,  Acts  xvi.  34,  xa;  ytya.WKtcstl'i  Trctvom  TrtriTi- 
uMii^  I  am  aware  that  a  different  construction  is  given  to  it  by 
many  eminent  critics,  even  among  pcedobaptists,  in  accordancfe 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


77 


It  has  been  asserted  that  Lydia's  household,  who 
were  baptized  with  lier,  must  have  been  adult  be- 
lievers,, because  it  is  said  (Acts  xvi.  40.)  that  when 
released  from  prison,  Paul  and  Silas  entered  into  Ly- 
dia's  house,  and  saw  and  comforted  the  brethren  before 
they  departed.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  these 
brethren  were  those  of  her  household,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  they  were.  Under  the  peculiar  circum- 
stances in  which  Paul  and  Silas  were  about  to  depart, 
it  would  have  been  strange  indeed,  if  they  had  not 
collected  around  them  the  young  converts  from  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  city  to  the  house  of  Lydia,  where 
they  staid,  to  give  them  a  parting  exhortation.  This 
account  is  throuffhout  consistent  with  the  doctrine  of 


with  our  version.  Rosenmiiller  says,  *' Participiam  hie  caussam 
reddit,  (viz.  gaudii  janitoris.)  Ideo,  (adds  this  author,)  gavisus 
est,  quod  non  ipse  tantum,  sed  et  tola  ejus  farnilia  tanta  luce 
perfusa  esset."  This  expression  is  equivocal,  luce  perfusa  esse,  is 
not  precisely  to  beheve,  but  to  be  surrounded  with  the  truth  as 
with  hght.  Yet  I  doubt  not  the  opinion  of  this  learned  writer  i?, 
that  the  adverb  Trctvax.!,  bears  on  TrtTig-i-jKO)!,  rather  than  on  nyoi.}.- 
i^isL^oOo,  a  construction  not  uncommon  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
this  interpretation  I  find  tiiat  Erasmus  and  Grotius  concur: 
Doddridge  also  seems  to  favour  this  interpretation.  To  autho- 
rity so  respectable,  great  deference  is  certainly  due ;  and  yet  I 
acknowledge  that  I  am  not  satisfied  by  it;  the  construction 
appears  to  me  forced  and  unnatural ;  and  I  find  that  Dr.  Guyse 
felt  the  same  difficulties  against  its  adoption.  His  note  on  this 
pjissage  is,  "  one  sense  that  I  have  given  of  this  passage,  is  ac' 
cording  to  Mr.  Henry's  observation  that  it  may  be  read,  'He 
believing  in  God,  rejoiced  all  the  house  over,''  vAvoixt.  he  went  into 
every  apartment  expressing  his  joy.  And  it  is  evident  that  the 
words  (>f>*xx*A(7-ai7o  Tfczje/s-fvxa'')  he  having  believed,  rejoiced,  express 
only  his  own,  and  not  his  family's  faith  and  joy." 

7* 


79  INFANT  BAPTISH. 

infant  baptism.  While  the  case  of  the  jailer,  affords, 
at  least,  strong  presumption  of  the  baptism  of  members 
of  a  family  of  whose  faith  we  know  nothings  in  con- 
sequence of  the  faith  of  the  head  of  that  family. 

It  is  objected,  4thly,  Infants  can  derive  no  benefit 
from  baptism ;  their  baptism  is  of  no  use,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  of  God's  appointment.  But  this  objec- 
tion bears  with  equal  force  against  infant  circumci- 
sion. Baptism  now  denotes  inward  cleansing,  so  of 
old  did  circumcision.  No  more  is  said  of  baptism, 
than  is  said  of  circumcision  :  it  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  Paul  says,  "  circumcision 
verily  profiteth  if  thou  keep  the  law  ;  but  if  thou  break 
the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircumcision." 
Rom.  iii.  25.  For  I  certify  to  every  one  that  is  circum- 
cised, that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  Gal.  iv.  3. 
No  stronger  language  is  any  where  employed  respect- 
ing  baptism.  How  plausibly,  then,  might  it  have  been 
argued,  that  infant  circumcision  was  needless,  because 
it  must  be  unprofitable,  since  infants  could  not  keep 
the  law.  But  God  decided  otherwise,  in  directing 
that  infants  be  circumcised  :  and  in  so  doing,  God  has 
decided  that  infants  may  be  proper  subjects  for  the 
reception  of  an  ordinance,  even  though  many  things 
connected  with  that  ordinance  apply  only  to  adults, 
and  not  at  all  to  persons  in  infancy.  An  objection 
which  thus  charges  foolishness  on  God;  must  be  pow- 
erless. 

It  is  objected,  5thly,  Infant  baptism  is  professedly 
founded  on  the  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  a 
transaction  recorded  in  Genesis,  which  can  have  no  rtf 
lation  to  a  New  Testament  ordinance. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  70 

This  objection  is  gravely  urged  by  Dr.  Ryland,  a 
Baptist  minister  at  Bristol,  (Eng.)  a  learned,  and  ge- 
nerally a  candid  man.  But  this  objection  is  really 
founded  on  the  same  fallacious  argument  before  no- 
ticed, viz.  :  that  the  mere  Utter  of  the  law  is  our  only 
guide  in  regard  to  positive  institutions.  If,  by  the  mere 
letter  of  the  law,  be  meant  the  testimony  of  God  in  his 
word,  the  maxim  is  true  ;  but  then  Genesis  is  a  part 
of  that  law.  But  if  it  mean,  merely  the  words  uttered 
at  the  time  of  the  institution  of  the  ordinance,  then  it  is 
not  true.  Our  Lord  once  washed  his  disciples'  feet, 
concluding  with  saying,  "  If  I,  your  Lord  and  master, 
have  washed  your  feet,  ye  ought  also  to  wash  one  ana- 
therms  feet  ;  for  I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye 
should  do  as  I  have  done  unto  you" — John  xiii.  14, 15. 
Here  is  the  plain  letter  of  a  command  for  a  positive 
institution.  Do,  then,  they  who  contend  for  the  mere 
letter  as  our  only  guide,  regard  this  as  a  third  ordinance 
in  the  christian  church,  and  follow  the  administration 
of  the  Lord's  supper  by  the  pedilavium,  or  washing  of 
each  other's  feet  ?  No,  they  reason,  that  the  design 
was  simply  to  teach  Christians  a  lesson  of  humihty 
and  mutual  kindness  ;  and  in  this  reasoning  we  coin, 
cide.  But  such  reasoning  is  not  obeying  the  mere 
letter  of  the  command  :  it  sets  the  letter  wholly  aside. 
Again,  Peter  had  heard  the  command  to  teach  and 
baptize  all  nations  :  but  the  mere  letter  was  not  suffi. 
ciently  plain  to  direct  him.  He  did  not  suppose  that 
it  authorized  him  to  baptize  gentiles.  So  that,  when  he 
was  to  go  to  Cornelius,  God  sent  a  vision  to  teach 
him.  But  even  that  vision  did  not  bring  to  him  a 
plain  command,  respecting  either  teaching,  or  bapti^ 


§0  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ing  gentiles.  What  God  hath  cleansed  that  call  not  thou 
common,  Acts  x.  15,  was  the  voice  from  heaven. 
Presently,  messengers  from  Caesarea,  summoned  him 
to  Cornelius ;  and  he  must  infer,  first  from  the  vision, 
that  he  might  preach  to  and  baptize  gentiles ;  and 
then,  from  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  poured  out  on 
Cornelius's  household,  that  to  them  the  ordinance 
might  properly  be  applied.  God  himself,  then,  re- 
quired  Peter  to  reason  and  to  infer  respecting  the 
subjects  of  baptism,  where  the  mere  letter  of  the  in- 
stitution failed  to  guide  him.  But  if  it  was  lawful  for 
Peter  thus  to  be  guided  by  inferential  reasoning,  w4iy 
not  for  us  ?  And  why  may  we  not  reason  from  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism ;  or 
from  any  part  of  the  Bible  whatever,  if  it  can  be 
shown  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  subject,  as  well  as 
Peter  might  from^.  the  vision  of  the  sheet,  in  which 
not  one  syllable  was  uttered  respecting  either  preach- 
ing  or  baptism?  We  may  also  add,  that  if  those  who 
now  deny  infant  baptism,  cannot,  (as  they  tell  us)  feel 
the  force  of  an  argument  drawn  for  it  from  the  Abra- 
hamic covenant,  or  from  the  book  of  Genesis,  Paul 
could.  In  Galatians,  third  chapter,  he  reasons  from 
the  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  the 
effect  of  baptism  as  an  open  union  with  Christ,  to 
show  that  baptism  entitles  us  to  a  share  in  the  blessing 
promised,  in  that  covenant,  to  Abraham's  seed.  The 
blessing  of  Abraham  is  come  upon  the  gentiles  through 
Jesus  Christ ;  for  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ :  and  if  ye  be 
Chrisfs,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  ac- 
cording to  the  promise  !  Every  way  then  the  objection 


INFANT  BAFTI8M. 


81 


is  without  foundation  ;  and  so  long  as  the  third  chap- 
ter of  Galatians  stands  in  my  Bible,  I  must  beheve 
that  there  is  a  connexion  between  baptism  and  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  and  that  to  argue  from  the 
one  to  the  other,  is  scriptural  and  safe. 

One  more  objection  is  sometimes  urged,  viz.  : 
(5.   That  the  advocates  of  infant  baphm  are  very 
much  divided  among  thenmhes,  as  to  the  relation  in 
which  baptized  children  stand  to  the  church. 

But  it  is  abundantly  clear,  that  difference  of  opin- 
ion as  to  the  practical  consequences  of  any  doctrme, 
can  never  affect  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  itself;  can- 
not invalidate  a  single  argument  by  which  it  is  sup- 
ported.  Difference  of  opinion  among  men  on  some 
points,  does  not  prove  that  the  doctrines  they  hold  in 
common  are  not  true.  Else  the  papists  are  right,  when 
they  assert  that  the  divisions  among  protestants,  prove 
all  protestants  alike  in  error,  in  their  renunciation  of 

popery. 

The  arguments  usually  urged  against  infant  bap- 
tism have  now  been  honestly  and  fairly  stated  ;  and  it 
has  been  shown  that  they  are,  without  exception,  void 
of  force,  and  for  the  most  part  sophistical.  All  objec 
tions  being  thus  removed,  every  argument  that  has 
been  adduced,  bears  with  undiminished  weight  di- 
rectly  in  support  of  infant  baptism.  And  since  the 
objections  against  infant  baptism  are  literally  of  no 
force,  even  if  the  arguments  in  its  favour  were  not 
absolutely  conclusive,  if  they  amounted  only  to  a  pro- 
hability,  that  probability  weighing  only  on  one  side, 
with  nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  to  oppose  it  on  the 
other,  ought  to  decide  every  conscientious  christian  t« 


83  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

seek,  by  consecrating  his  children  to  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham in  baptism,  to  obtain  for  them  a  participation  in 
that  covenant  blessing  secured  to  the  faithful,  in  the 
promise,  /  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee  in  their  generations.  Lest  haply,  he  be  found  a  con- 
temner of  God's  own  ordinance,  and  a  covenant 
breaker,  in  violating,  (ignorantly,  perhaps,  through  pre- 
judice, but  still  guiltily.)  the  engagements  implied  in 
his  own  baptism. 


THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM, 


1  PROCEED  now  to  consider  the  mode  of  baptism,  or 
the  iiumner  of  applying  water  in  this  ordinance. 

Baptists  contend  that  immersion,  or  plunging  the 
whole  body  under  water,  is  the  only  scriptural  mode  : 
and  they  appeal  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize, 
to  the  cases  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  and  to  allusions  found  in  the  apostolic  writings. 
Let  us  examine  each  of  these  points  separately. 

The  word  baptize  does  not  mean  to  immerse  only  ; 
there  is  indeed  a  word  in  Scripture,  ^ctirru,  which  pro- 
perly signifies  to  dip  or  immerse  ;  and  had  that  word 
been  used  by  our  Lord,  dipping  in  water  would  have 
been  the  only  proper  mode  of  administering  the  ini- 
tiatory ordinance  of  the  church.  But  our  Lord  uses 
baptize,  ^w^ti^u,  which  is  a  different  word  ;  the  proper 
meaning  of  which  seems  to  be,  to  wet,  to  cleanse  by 
wetting,  or  to  wash  ;  which  may  be  done  in  any  one 
of  the  ways  of  plunging,  pouring,  or  sprinkling.  In 
Heb.  ix.  10,  we  read  of  divers  washings,  (Greek, — 
divers  baptisms,)  which  refer  to  the  various  ablutions, 
or  ceremonial  cleansings,  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic 
law  ;  but  these  we  know  were  performed  in  different 
ways,   chiefly  however  by  sprinkling,  Numb.  viii.  7. 


P4  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

xix.  18 — 21.  Lev.  xiv.  7.  It  has  indeed  been  said  by 
one  recently,*  "  Every  Jew  knows,  that  whatever  is  to 
be  purified  by  water,  whether  cups,  tables,  beds,  (Sfc.  it 
must  be  by  immersion.^'  And  in  another  place  he  says, 
p.  103,  "The  purifications  by  water,  to  which  the  apos- 
tle alludes,  were  all  by  immersion,"  referring  us  to 
Lev.  xi.  32.  Now  compare  this  assertion  with  Numb, 
viii.  7.  which  describes  how  the  Levites  were  to  be 
purified,  "  Sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them,  and 
let  them  shave  all  their  flesh,  and  let  them  icash  their 
clothes,  and  so  make  themselves  clean."  Here  the  per- 
sons themselves  are  to  be  shaved  and  sprinkled  only, 
not  immersed  ;  their  clothes  alone  were  to  be  washed  : 
So  in  Lev.  xiv.  7,  the  leper  when  cured,  in  order  to 
be  cleansed,  must  go  to  the  priest,  who  "  shall  sprinkle 
upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  the  leprosy  seven 
times,  and  shall  pronounce  him  clean,"  Here  then  are 
at  least  two  cases  in  which  cleansing  was  to  be  per- 
formed by  sprinkling,  not  by  immersion.  Again,  when 
vessels  and  tents,  &c.  had  been  polluted  by  a  dead 
body,  a  clean  person  must  sprinkle  the  tent,  vessels,  <^c. 
with  water  containing  the  ashes  of  a  red  heiler,  and 
thus  were  they  cleansed,  Numb.  xix.  18.  But  the 
Apostle  had  in  view  especially  that  purging,  or  cleans, 
ing  which  was  performed  by  sprinkling  with  blood,8.s 
appears  from  v.  19.  21.  These  sprinklings,  as  well  as 
ablutions  of  all  other  kinds,  the  Apostle  calls  baptisms  : 
which  could  not  be,  if  baptism  were  never  any  thing 
but  immersion. 


*  Fr«7  p.  101. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  86 

In  Mark  vii.  4.  wc  read  of  the  washing  of  cuju  and 
pots  J  brazen  vessels  and  Uihles  ;  the  Greek  word  here 
translated,  washings,  is  baptisms.  Cii])s  and  pots  and 
brazen  vessels  might  have  been  washed  by  iinniersion  ; 
though  it  is  not  likely  that  even  these  would  always 
be  plunged  wholly  under  water :  but  as  to  the  tables, 
or  rather  beds  or  couches,  used  to  sleep  on  at  night, 
and  lie  on  at  full  length,  at  meals,  and  on  each  of 
which  three  persons  usually  reclined  at  once  ;  it  is 
utterly  incredible  that  they  should  have  been  cleansed 
by  immersion.  The  law  prescribed  sprinkling  for  tents; 
and  the  Jews  often  practised  washing  by  a  sponge. 
But  this  washing  of  beds,  whether  by  sprinkling  or 
sponging,  Mark  calls  baptism  !  It  certainly  was  not 
immersion  :  Mr.  Frey  quotes  (p.  iOl.)  a  saying  from 
the  Jewish  rabbins,  ''A  bed  that  is  wholly  d<Jiled,  if 
he  dips  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure.''  Obviously  this  refers 
to  extraordinary  cases,  not  to  the  purification  com- 
monly  employed.  But  would  such  dipping,  by  part  at 
a  time,  be  regarded  by  Baptists  as  proper  immersion  ? 
Would  they  baptize  by  dipping  first  one  part  of  the 
body,  and  then  another  ?  Would  this  comport  with 
their  favourite  language,  going  down  into  a  waterv 
grave  ?  Most  plainly,  the  baptism  of  the  tables,  here 
spoken  of,  is  not  the  immersion  for  which  Baptists 
contend. 

Luke  tells  us,  xi.  3S,  that  the  Pharisees  marvelled 
that  Christ  had  not  first  washed  (the  Greek  is,  had  not 
first  been  baptized,)  before  dinner.  Now  what  kind  of 
washmg,  before  eating,  was  practised  by  the  Pharisees? 
Mark  tells  us  vii.  3.  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews, 
except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not.  A  compari- 
8 


86  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

son  of  these  two  passages  clearly  shows,  that  a  person 
who  had  washed  only  his  hands,  was  yet  baptized ;  for 
Luke  expressly  says  of  such  a  person,  he  is  baptized. 
Assuredly,  then,  to  baptize  does  not,  (in  the  New  Tes- 
tament at  least,)  mean  merely  to  immerse. 

And  it  is  remarkable  that  Origen,  a  most  accurate 
Greek  scholar,  when  speaking  of  Elijah's  (1  Kings 
xviii.  33,)  pouring  water  on  the  altar  in  presence  of 
all  Israel,  and  the  priests  of  Baal,  says  he  baptized  it  : 
Homer  also  in  a  mock-heroic  poem,  when  speaking 
of  a  lake  tinged  or  discoloured  with  the  blood  of  frogs, 
uses  the  same  word,  it  was  baptized  with  blood.  To 
baptize  cannot,  then,  mean  only  to  immerse ;  its  true 
meaning  is  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  wet ;  and  because  wash- 
ing or  cleansing  is  performed  by  wetting,  it  is  used  to 
express  all  the  various  modes  of  washing,  whether  by 
plunging,  pouring,  or  sprinkling ;  and  baptism  may  with 
propriety  be  administered  in  any  one  of  these  ways. 

This  further  appears  from  the  signification  of  this 
ordinance,  and  the  figures  employed  in  Scripture  to 
express  the  thing  signified.  Baptism,  we  have  seen, 
denotes  inward  cleansing,  which  is  effected  by  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  "  by  one  spirit  tee  are  all  baptized  into 
one  body,''^  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  Matt.  iii.  11.  Now  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  is  never  spoken  of  as  immersion,  but  as  a  pour- 
ing or  shedding  forth,  a  sprinkling,  a  coming  down 
like  rain.  I  will  pour  my  spirit  upon  thy  seed,  Isa.  xliv. 
3.  Then  will  /  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  clean.  Renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
was  shed  on  us  abundantly,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  26.  He 
shall  come  down  like  rain  upon  the  mown  grass.  Tit. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  87 

iii.  5,  0.  The  Holy  CJhost  is  said  to  be  poured  out, 
shed  down,  Ps.  Ixxii.  6.  sent  like  rain  upon  men, 
sprinkled  like  water ;  and  they  who  thus  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost  are  said  to  be  baptized,  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  What  does  this  teach,  if  not  that  poijrin<;  or 
sprinkling  is  baptism  ?  And  if  the  sign  should  repre- 
sent the  tiling  signified,  water  may  properly  be  pour- 
ed or  sprinkled  in  baptism,  to  represent  truly  the 
cleansing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  are 
said  to  be  poured,  shed  down  or  sprinkled  on  men  ; 
but  never  are  men  said  to  be  immersed  in  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

To  the  same  purpose  is  that  prophecy  respecting 
Christ,  "  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,  Isa.  Iii.  15. 
As  it  respects  spiritual  mercies,  it  denotes  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  sprinkling  of  Christ's  blood  on 
men's  hearts  for  purification.  As  it  denotes  the  out- 
ward  sign  of  this  blessing,  the  prophecy  is  descriptive 
of  the  admission  of  people  of  various  nations  to  the 
gospel  church,  in  their  being  baptized  by  sprinUing. 
Except  in  this  way  of  baptism  by  sprinkling,  this  pro- 
phecy has  not  been,  and  never  will  be,  literally  ful- 
filled.  It  seems,  viewed  in  connexion  with  the  other 
prophecies  just  adduced,  to  show  that  sprinkling  is 
the  preferable  mode  of  baptizing  :  especially  as  this 
mode  directly  reminds  all  beholders  of  the  ancient 
mode  of  purifying  the  unclean  under  the  law  ;  and 
also  of  the  application  of  Christ's  precious  blood, 
which  is  said  to  be  done  by  sprinkling,  Heb.  xii.  24. 
1  Pet.  i.  2. 

It  cannot,  then,  be  shown  that  immersion  is  the  only 
meaning  affixed,  in  the  New  Testament  at  least,  to  the 


88  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

word  baptize  ;  or  that  the  Scriptures  require  immersion 
in  this  ordinance.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  par- 
ticular mode  in  which  water  is  to  be  applied  in  baptism, 
is  a  matter  of  secondary  importance.  Had  this  been 
essential,  doubtless  the  directions  would  have  been  as 
clear  and  minute,  as  the  prescriptions  for  any  rite  un- 
der the  ceremonial  law.  For  any  men  to  insist  so 
strenuously  on  a  particular  mode,  when  God  has  left 
it  undecided  in  his  word,  is  not  in  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel. 

But  it  is  said,  the  circumstances  attending  the  bap- 
tisms recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  show  that  bap- 
tism must  then  have  been  performed  by  immersion  ! 

Jesus  himself  was  baptized  by  John  in  the  river  Jor- 
dan, Matt.  iii.  15.  John  had  already  baptized  in 
Jordan  the  multitudes  who  came  to  him  from  Jerusa- 
lem,  and  all  Judea,  and  the  region  round  about,  con- 
fessing their  sins  ;  and  we  are  told  expressly,  v.  16, 
Jesus,  when  he  icas  baptized,  went  vp  straightway  out  of 
the  water ;  and  Baptist  writers,  when  adducing  these 
passages,  generally  take  care  to  have  printed,  in  large 
letters,  the  words  in  Jordan  ;  went  down  into  the  icater, 
and  came  up  out  of  the  water ;  that  their  readers  may 
be  sure  to  notice  them.  This  is  unworthy  of  a  chris- 
tian writer.  The  river  Jordan  had  very  high  banks  ; 
after  the  rainy  season  the  river  rose  so  as  to  fill  its 
outer  banks.  In  summer  it  was  a  shallow  stream,  con- 
fined within  the  inner  or  lower  banks.  Those  who  ap- 
proached the  river  in  dry  weather,  must  of  necessity 
descend  these  outer  banks  to  get  to  the  water's  edge, 
even  if  they  only  entered  a  few  steps.  To  baptize 
in  the  river,  comported  with  John's  habits  as  a  dweller 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


89 


in  retired  places  ;  it  was  suitable  to  the  climate,  the 
heat  of  which  rendered  frequent  wetting  of  the  feet 
agreeable.  But  if  he  baptized,  by  pouring,  or  sprink- 
ling in  the  river,  all  that  is  said  about  goijig  down  to 
or  into  the  water,  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water, 
would  be  equally  natural  and  proper,  as  if  he  baptized 
by  plunging.  And  I  hesitate  not  to  assert,  no  man  can 
prove  that  either  John  or  the  Apostles  baptized  by  im- 
mersion. Men  may  regard  it  as  probable  ;  but  proba- 
bility is  not  proof :  and  for  any  to  assume  that  one 
mode  only  was  employed,  and  then  demand  that  all 
should  comply  with  that  mode,  while  they  can  produce 
neither  express  command,  nor  an  undeniable  example 
of  baptism  by  immersion  in  all  the  Bible,  is  rather  a 
bold  stand  to  take  ;  especially  for  those  who  insist  that, 
in  a  positive  ordinance,  the  law  of  institution  must  be 
our  only  guide  !  Show  from  the  Scripture,  that  im- 
mersion is  positively  required  as  the  only  proper  mode 
of  baptism,  and  we  will  receive  it  and  abide  by  it. 
Show  that  Jesus  was  baptized  by  immersicm,  or  that 
the  eunuch  was,  and  we  will  admit  that  there  is  a 
plain  scriptural  example  of  it.  But  till  then,  we  must 
be  permitted  to  doubt ;  especially  as  we  find  no  men- 
tion made  of  change  of  raiment,  nor  any  allusion  to 
a  provision  for  such  change,  in  all  the  New  Testament 
account  of  baptisms. 

But  should  we  admit  that  John  baptized  our  Lord 
by  immersing  him  in  Jordan,  this  is  no  guide  for  us  ; 
and  when  our  Baptist  brethren  call  on  men  to  imitate 
their  Lord,  by  going  down  into  a  watery  grave,  as  they 
often  express  it,  they  are  calling  on  them  to  do  what 
the  Scriptures  no  where  require.     We  are  to  follow 


^0  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Christ's  example,  it  is  true,  but  not  in  all  things.  Christ 
was  circumcised,  he  ate  the  passover,  he  lived  a  single 
life,  he  fasted  forty  days  continuously,  he  was  not 
baptized  till  thirty  years  of  age  ;  are  we  then  to  follow 
his  example  in  all  these  respects  ?  If  we  are  to  be 
immersed  because  Christ  was  immersed,  (supposing 
that  he  was  really  immersed)  I  cannot  see  why  bap- 
tism must  not  always  be  administered  to  a  person  at 
thirty  years  of  age,  as  well  as  by  immersion  :  his  age 
was  one  circumstance  attending  Christ's  baptism,  as 
well  as  the  manner  in  which  the  water  was  applied. 
The  truth  is,  the  baptism  of  John  was  quite  a  different 
thing  from  christian  baptism.  It  was  appointed  of  God, 
doubtless  as  a  token  of  the  purification  professedly 
desired  by  those  who  came  confessing  their  sins.  It 
was  not  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  It 
was  not  administered  under  the  commission  of  Christ. 
It  was  begun  and  ended  before  christian  baptism  was 
instituted.  Those  whom  John  had  baptized,  afterwards 
received  .christian  baptism.  Acts  xix.  1 — 5  ;  and  pro- 
bably not  a  fev/  of  those  baptized  by  the  Apostles  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  had  before  been  baptized  by 
John.  Our  Lord  submitted  to  John's  baptism,  as  an 
Ordinance  of  divine  appointment ;  and  he  was  also 
thereby  inducted  into  his  office  as  a  priest.  Aaron  and 
his  sons  were  thus  set  apart  to  the  priest's  office,  by 
being  washed.  Lev.  viii.  6,  and  Christ  was  a  high 
priest  over  the  house  of  God,  Heb.  x.  21.  vii.  11.  there- 
fore it  was  performed  when  he  was  thirty  years  of 
age.  Luke  iii.  23,  compare  Numb.  iv.  3.  Whether, 
therefore,  Christ  was  immersed  or  not,  it  furnishes  no 
guide  for  us.  His  was  not  christian  baptism ;  and  we  are 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  91 

no  where  referred  to  it  as  an  example  for  our  imitation 
in  baptism. 

Nor  does  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  Ethiopi- 
an eunuch,  furnish  decisive  evidence  that  he  was  im- 
mersed, Acts  viii.  38,  39.  "  He  commanded  the  chariot 
to  stand  still,  and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  :  and  he  baptized  him.  And 
when  they  had  come  up  out  of  the  icatcr,  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  that  the  eunuch  saw  him 
no  more ;  and  he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing^ 

There  is  here  nothing  that  should  lead  us  to  sup- 
pose the  eunuch's  baptism  was  by  immersion.*  In 
that  warm  climate,  and  loosely  clad,  with  the  feet  pro- 
tected only  by  sandals,  (a  kind  of  sole,  of  wood  or 
leather  fastened  to  the  sole  of  the  foot,)  to  dip  the 
feet  in  water  would  be  easy,  and  pleasant ;  and  if 
they  only  went  up  to  the  knees  in  water,  the  into  and 
out  of  the  water  are  natural  and  appropriate.  The 
truth  is,  the  words  translated  into  and  out  of,  may  just 


*  On  the  contrary,  as  Philip  was  expounding,  Isa.  liii.  7,  8, 
which  describes  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  blessings  of  the 
gospel ;  and  the  eunuch  addressed  himself  to  Philip,  "  see  here 
is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized :"  This  address  seema 
very  abrupt  till  we  turn  to  Isaiah,  and  find  a  few  verses  before 
the  passage  mentioned,  these  words,  "  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations."  On  this  Philip  had  doubtless  spoken.  If  he  explained 
it  to  mean  spiritual  blessings,  as  these  blessings  are  represented 
by  baptism,  he  would  doubtless  explain  that  ordinance.  Or  if,  a3 
is  most  probable,  he  explained  the  pasisage  as  denoting  the  ordi- 
nance of  christian  baptism  itself;  in  either  case  we  perceive  the 
appropriateness  of  the  eunuch's  inquiry,  and  tind  strong  ground 
to  believe  that  the  eunuch  was  baptized  by  sprinkling,  in  fulfil- 
ment of  this  prophecy,  not  by  immersion. 


92  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

as  well  be  rendered  to  and  from  :  as  when  John  said 
flee  from  the  wrath  to  cojne,  who  would  think  of  saying 
flee  out  of  the  wrath  to  come  ?  yet  the  word  is  the 
same  as  when  it  is  said  of  our  Lord,  Matt.  iii.  16  ; 
Jesus  when  he  was  baptized  came  vp  straightway  out  of 
the  water.  If  these  passages  be  translated,  John  was 
baptizing  at  the  Jordan  ;  they  went  down  to  the  water, 
and  came  up  from  the  water ;  where  would  be  the 
evidence  of  immersion  ? 

When  it  is  said  John  was  baptizing  in  ^non  near 
to  Salem,  because  there  was  much  water  there,  the 
words  are  literally  many  waters,  i.  e.  streams  or  foun- 
tains of  water  ;  which  were  necessary  for  the  comfort 
of  his  hearers  in  the  desert ;  but  cannot  show  that  he 
baptized  by  immersion.  Sandys,  a  traveller  who  has 
been  on  the  spot,  assures  us  it  is  a  sandy  region ;  the 
little  springs  gushing  out  there,  being  soon  absorbed 
by  the  sands.  Nothing  like  water  suitable  for  im- 
mersion, can,  now  at  least,  be  found  there.  But  if  the 
Apostles  could  baptize  three  thousand  in  one  day  at 
Jerusalem,  who  can  believe  that  John  must  go  to 
^Enon,  merely  to  have  water  sufficient  to  baptize  with  ? 

The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of 
pentecost  at  Jerusalem,  could  not,  as  it  would  seem, 
have  been  performed  by  immersion,  as  Dr.  Woods  of 
Andover  has  recently  shown.  Acts  ii.  41.  It  was  the 
third  hour,  or  about  nine  o'clock  a.  m.  when  Peter 
began  to  speak.  Much  was  said  and  much  done  ;  and 
before  three  thousand  persons  could  have  received 
suitable  instruction,  and  satisfied  the  Apostles  of  the 
genuineness  of  their  conversion,  a  great  part  of  the 
day  must  have  been  spent.     Doubtless  all  the  twelve 


INFANT   BAPTISM. 


93 


Apostles  engaged  in  baptizing.  It  was  at  Pentecost, 
in  May,  the  dry  season  ;  the  brook  Kedron  was  no 
doubt  dry  ;  and  no  pool  or  reservoir  of  water  did  the 
city  furnish,  except  the  pool  of  Siloam,  (sec  Jahn. 
§335.)  Yet  no  hint  is  given  of  their  going  away; 
nothinjr  of  chanffintr  garments.  Baths  there  doubtless 
were  in  the  houses  of  the  wealthy  ;  but  how  unlikely 
that  the  disciples  of  the  crucified  Jesus,  and  this  great 
multitude  should  be  admitted  to  these  baths  ?  Suppos- 
ing  however  all  these  difficulties  got  over,  and  that 
abundance  of  water  was  to  be  had  for  immersion, 
and  admitting  that  each  of  the  twelve  Apostles  could 
find  a  suitable  place  to  baptize  in  by  immersion,  and 
that  five  hours  were  employed  solely  in  baptizmg, 
(all  which  is  highly  improbable)  there  must  have  been 
five  hundred  baptized  each  hour  ;  that  is,  fifty  to  each 
apostle,  for  one  hour,  or  little  more  than  a  minute  for 
baptizing  each  ;  and  that  for  five  hours  in  succession  ! 
It  is  incredible  !  To  do  it  by  immersion  were  impossible, 
without  a  series  of  miracles  to  aid  them.  A  sober 
examination  of  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on 
the  day  of  pentecost,  leaves  no  room  to  believe  that 
immersion  could  have  been  the  mode  practised.  If 
sprinkling  or  pouring  water  were  the  mode,  the  trans- 
action  might  have  taken  place  in  the  time  specified. 

The  baptism  of  Simon  Magus,  and  other  Samari- 
tans,  Acts  viii.  12,  13,  that  of  the  Corinthians  record- 
ed  Acts  xviii.  8,  and  of  twelve  mentioned  Acts  xix. 
5.  7,  whom  Paul  baptized,  furnish  no  evidence  as  to 
the  mode,  since  it  is  merely  said  they  were  baptized. 
Paul's  baptism  is  recorded  Acts  ix.  17,  18.  When 
Ananias  came  to  him  and  laid  his  hands  on  him.  it  is 


94  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

said,  *'  he  arose  and  icas  baptized,  and  when  he  had 
received  meat  he  was  strengthened.^^  All  this  took 
place  in  Paul's  chamber,  he  arose,  and  was  baptized, 
(standing  no  doubt,)  either  by  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
and  then  took  nourishment ;  for  he  had  been  three 
days  without  food.  Nothing  is  said  about  his  going 
out  to  be  immersed  in  a  stream  or  a  bath  ;  and  his 
weakness  after  so  long  fasting  and  so  much  mental 
anguish,  renders  it  extremely  unlikely  that  he  should 
have  done  so.  From  the  record  all  appears  to  have 
taken  place  on  the  spot ;  compare  Acts  xxii.  16. 

The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  household  is  next 
recorded.  She  appears  to  have  been  converted  and 
baptized  in  a  proseuchoe,  an  oratory  or  place  for  prayer, 
on  the  bank  of  a  river  near  Philippi ;  Acts  xvi.  15, 
compare  v.  12,  13  :  but  not  a  word  is  said  about 
going  to  the  river,  or  changing  her  dress,  or  any 
thing  that  looks  like  immersion.  She  came  to  worship, 
not  expecting  baptism  ;  and  on  her  conversion  was 
there  baptized,  without  preparation  or  delay.  The 
same  chapter,  v.  25 — 34,  contains  an  account  of  the 
baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  family.  He  took  the 
prisoners  out  of  the  inner  prison,  or  dungeon,  and 
brought  them  out,  i.  e.  doubtless  into  the  outer  prison. 
There  they  preached,  there  he  believed,  and  there  he 
was  baptized  ;  after  which  he  took  them  into  his  house, 
i.  e.  the  apartments  in  the  prison  building  occupied  by 
his  own  family,  and  set  meat  before  them.  All  this  was 
done  in  the  night.  It  is  very  improbable  that  at  that 
hour  they  should  have  gone  out  to  a  stream:  the 
guards  outside  would  have  prevented  them  :  it  would 
have  been  a  violation  of  the  jailer's  trust  to  lead  them 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  95 

out  of  prison  into  the  city.  And  in  the  prison  itself,  it 
is  highly  improbable  that  conveniences  should  have 
been  found,  to  immerse  this  whole  family.  The  whole 
history  renders  it  highly  improbable  that  they  should 
have  been  baptized  by  inmiersion  ;  it  was  most  likely 
done  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

The  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  household  is  re- 
corded, Acts  X.  44 — 47  :  "  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  an  all 
that  heard  Peter."  The  Jews  present  were  astonished, 
because  that  on  the  gentiles  was  poured  out  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Tliis  induced  Peter  to  propose 
baptism  ;  their  baptism,  was  to  represent  this  spiritual 
work  :  baptizing  them  by  pouring  water,  would  fitly 
represent  it,  but  immersing  them  would  not.  Accord- 
ingly Peter  asks,  "  who  can  forbid  water  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized  .^"  These  words  plainly  imply  that 
water  was  to  be  brought  to  them,  not  that  they  were  to 
be  conducted  to  the  water.  Well  accordmg,  not  with  im- 
mersion,  but  with  pouring  or  sprinkling  ;  a  fit  emblem 
of  the  shedding  forth  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

These  are  all  the  instances  of  baptism  recorded  in 
the  New  Testament.  In  not  one  case  is  it  clear  that 
baptism  was  administered  by  immersion  :  in  several 
of  them  it  is  almost  certain  it  must  have  been  done 
by  sprinkling  or  by  affusion.  And  since  God  no  where 
prescribes  any  one  mode  exclusively,  we  ought  not  to 
regard  the  mode  as  essential,  or  even  of  much  impor. 
tance  ;  although  the  evidence  in  favour  of  sprinkling 
or  pouring,  greatly  preponderates.  Wherever  men 
were  when  converted,  there  they  were  baptized,  whe- 
ther in  the  streets  of  a  city,  in  a  place  of  prayer,  at 
home,    or  even    in    a   prison.      No    preparation,   no 


96  INFAT^T  BAPTISM. 

change  of  place,  no  change  of  garments,  is  ever  halt- 
ed at.  In  no  instance  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, could  the  person  baptized  have  expected  to  re- 
ceive this  ordinance,  when  he  came  to  the  place  where 
it  was  administered  to  him  ;  and  of  course  preparation 
was  out  of  the  question. 

The  expression  found  in  Rom.  vi.  4.  buried  with  him 
(i.  e.  Christ)  by  baptism,  unto  death,  is  often  quoted  to 
prove  that  immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode  of  bap- 
tism  ;  since  no  other  mode  represents  burial,  compare 
Col.  ii.  12.  The  language  is  figurative  ;  the  Apostle 
refers  to  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,  not  at  all  to 
the  mode  of  administering  that  ordinance.  The  Jews 
did  not  always  bury  as  we  do  by  covering  the  body  un- 
der  ground,  but  often  by  laying  it  in  a  niche,  or  cave, 
hewn  out  of  a  rock.  What  resemblance  is  there  between 
a  man's  being  plunged  in  water,  and  Christ's  body  be- 
ing placed  in  a  niche  cut  out  of  a  rock  ?  Robinson 
the  Baptist  historian,  and  Mr.  Judson  the  Baptist  mis. 
sionary  in  the  East,  both  admit  that  this  passage  is 
misapplied,  when  used  as  evidence  of  the  mode  of 
baptism.  And  that  it  is  so,  is  apparent ;  because,  the 
Apostle  goes  on  to  declare  that  believers  are,  in  bap- 
tism, also  planted  into  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death, 
and  crucified  with  him.  If  the  mode  of  baptism  be 
in  the  Apostle's  view,  that  mode  must  be  equally  a 
resemblance  of  planting,  and  crucifying,  as  of  burying. 
But  who  will  pretend  that  immersion  represents  the 
act  of  planting,  or  of  crucifying  ?  Plainly,  the  Apostle 
means,  that  in  regeneration,  which  baptism  represents, 
believers  become  mortified  to  sin  :  they  are,  as  to  the 


INFANT   HAfTISM. 


9T 


love  and  practice  of  their  former  sins,  as  though  they 
were  dead  and  buried. 

That  baptism,  as  an  ordinance,  is  not  designed  to 
represent  or  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ,  is 
plain  ;  for  baptism  is  a  washing,  which  always  denotes 
purification,  not  death.  Besides,  the  Lord's  supper 
is  the  ordinance  appointed  expressly  to  commemorate 
Christ's  death ;  and  if  baptism  be  intended  to  repre- 
sent it  also,  then  two  distinct  ordinances  are  appointed 
to  represent  the  same  thing.  The  expression  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  has  therefore  no  refer- 
ence to  immersion  at  all. 

We  mav  now  understand  how  to  appreciate  the 
suggestion  which  some  baptist  writers  have  made, 
that  in  the  various  places  where  baptism  is  mentioned, 
the  expression  with  water  should  be  translated  in  water, 
e.  g.  "  /  indeed  baptize  you  lolth  water,  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Acts  xi.  16.  It  would 
be  manifestly  absurd  to  say,  ye  shall  be  baptized  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  since  the  Holy  Ghost  is  usually  re- 
presented as  poured  out  upon  men  ;  the  baptists  would 
translate  baptize  immerse,  and  then  immerse  you  with 
water  does  not  sound  well  ;  immerse  in  water  suits 
them  better  :  but  immerse  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  im- 
merse you  in  fire,  is  just  as  inappropriate. 

The  little  word  here  in  dispute  is  sometimes  trans- 
lated in,  sometimes  at,  and  sometimes  with;  the  connex- 
ion must  determine  which  version  is  appropriate.  In 
the  passage,  "  they  that  take  the  sword,  shall  perish  with 
the  sword,"  Matt.  xxvi.  52;  to  say  perish  in  the  sxcord 
would  be  absurd  ;  and  inasmuch  as  it  were  equally 
absurd  to  say  he  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
9 


98  INFANT  BAPTISM* 

propriety  requires  that  the  corresponding  clause  should 
read,  baptize  you  with  water,  which  shows  that  immer* 
sion  could  not  have  been  the  mode  intended. 

One  more  passage  only  will  I  adduce— -1  Cor.  x.  1, 
2  :  *'  Our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea  ;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in 
the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea  ;"  compare  with  Exod.  xiv. 
22.  28,  29  ;  where  we  learn  that  the  children  of  Israel 
walked  on  dry  land.  Now,  say  some,  the  cloud  above, 
which  poured  out  water  upon  them,  (see  Ps.  Ixxvii, 
16 — 20,)  and  the  sea  on  each  side,  show  they  were 
completely  enveloped  in  water,  or  immersed ;  and  that 
this  immersion  is  the  baptism  here  spoken  of.  But 
they  walked  on  dry  land ;  they  were  not  flooded  by 
descending  waters  :  so  far  as  they  were  wet  at  all,  it 
must  have  been  by  sprinkling,  from  the  clouds,  and 
from  the  spray  of  the  waves  ;  and  if  any  reference  be 
here  intended  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  the  passage  lends 
no  evidence  in  support  of  immersion,  but  rather  of 
sprinkling.  But,  probably,  no  thought  of  the  mode  of 
baptism  was  before  the  Apostle's  mind.  As  a  religious 
ordinance,  baptism  v>'as  not  instituted  in  the  time  of 
Moses.  But  as  baptism  implies  a  special  obligation 
laid  on  the  baptized,  to  serve  the  liord  Jesus  Christ, 
into  whose  name  they  are  baptized  ;  so,  by  the  signal 
deliverance  wrought  for  Israel,  by  the  hand  of  Moses, 
at  the  time  of  their  passage  through  the  Red  Sea,  God 
laid  Israel  under  special  obligation  to  obey  Moses, 
their  leader,  as  God's  messenger  to  them.  A  strong, 
but  impressive  figure,  is  here  used,  when  it  is  said, 
"  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  sea." 

Since,  then,  the  word  baptize  can  by  no  means  be 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


99 


shown  to  denote  immersion  only ;  since  there  is  no 
decisive  evidence  that  cither  the  baptism  of  our  Lord,  or 
any  of  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  book  of  Acts,  was 
performed  by  immersion ;  but  strong  ground  to  believe, 
that  the  ordinance  was  usually  administered  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  ;  and,  since  no  one  of  the  passages 
in  the  epistles,  in  which  baptism  is  mentioned,  docs, 
when  candidly  examined,  appear  to  relate  to  the  mode 
of  baptism  at  all  ;  and,  consequently,  not  the  shadow 
of  an  argument  can  be  derived  from  them  in  favour  of 
immersion  ;  it  is  plain  the  Scriptures  no  where  teach, 
either  by  precept  or  by  example,  that  immersion  is  the 
only  proper  mode  of  baptism  :  no  stress  is  laid  upon 
this  point  in  any  part  of  the  word  of  God.  We  con- 
elude,  therefore,  that  baptism  is  rightly  administered, 
either  by  immersion,  by  pouring,  or  by  sprinkling  ; 
while  convenience,  and  its  obvious  resemblance  to  the 
ancient  method  of  puritying,  and  its  agreement  with 
the  prophecy,  found  in  Isd.  lii.  15,  induce  us  rather 
to  prefer  sprinkling. 

If  the  circumstances  attending  the  application  of 
water  in  baptism,  be  so  important,  we  cannot  see  why 
equal  importance  should  not  be  attached  to  an  exact 
compliance  with  the  primitive  mode  of  receiving  and 
administering  the  Lord's  supper  :  that  is  a  positive  or- 
dinance, and  we  are  as  much  bound  to  exact  conformity 
with  the  scriptural  method  of  administering  that  ordi- 
nance, as  in  the  case  of  baptism.  Why,  then,  do  not 
Baptists  administer  the  Lord's  supper  at  the  close  of  a 
festive  entertainment,  in  an  upper  chamber,  and  in  the 
evening  ?  Why  do  they  not  partake  of  it,  all  reclining 
at  full  length  on  couches  or  beds,  spread  around  on© 


100 


INFANT  BAPTIS>r. 


common  table  ?  They  answer,  these  were  unimportant 
circumstances,  never  insisted  on  in  the  word  of  God. 
Right.  And  we  reply,  the  mode  in  which  water  is 
administered  in  baptism,  whether  by  immersing,  pour- 
ing, or  sprinkling,  is  an  unimportant  circumstance,  no 
where  insisted  on,  or  particularly  required,  in  the 
whole  word  of  God.  Let  every  one  take  heed,  then, 
lest,  in  opposing  and  denying  infant  baptism,  or  bap- 
tism as  administered  by  sprinkling,  he  be  found  fight- 
ing against  God  I* 


PRACTICAL  REMARKS. 

I  cannot  consent  wholly  to  dismiss  this  subject^ 
without  requesting  the  reader's  serious  attention  to  a 
few  closing  remarks. 

It  has,  1  think,  been  shown,  not  only  that  baptism, 
when  administered  by  sprinkling  water  in  the  name  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  is  a  valid  christian  ordinance,  but 
also  that  the  infant  children  of  God's  people  are  pro- 
per subjects  of  baptism,  and  ought  to  be   consecrated 


*  Since  this  work  went  to  the  press,  a  pamphlet,  entitled  "  The 
Scriptural  Directory  to  Baptism,"  by  a  Layman,  pubhshed  at  N.Y. 
1330,  has  been  put  into  my  hands,  and  perused  with  great  pleasure ; 
and  while  I  should  dissent  from  some  few  positions  laid  down 
by  the  author,  I  regard  it  as  an  ingenious  exposition  of  the 
improbability  that  immersion  could  have  been  the  mode  in  which 
baptism  was  administered,  either  by  John  the  Baptist,  or  by  the 
Apostles.  See  particularly  the  remarks  on  the  mode  of  John's 
baptism,  p.  12 — 15  ;  on  the  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  15-^17  ; 
and  on  the  baptism  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  p.  24—27. 


INFANT  BAPTISir.  101 

to  the  Most  High  in  that  sacred  ordinance  ;  so  that  all 
the  witticisms  in  which  some  writers  have  indulged  on 
what  they  are  pleased  to  term,  '*  baby  sprinkling j^*  are 
nothing  less  than  ^^ profane  ridicule!'^ 

Infant  baptism,  rightly  viewed,  is  not  only  a  scrip- 
tural rite,  but  one  full  of  meaning,  full  of  interest,  to 
children,  to  parents,  to  the  church,  and  to  society  at 
large. 

On  christian  parents  I  would  affectionately  call  to 
consider  dispassionately,  and  seriously,  the  interesting 
confirmation  lent  to  the  conclusion  at  which  we  have 
arrived,  that  infant  baptism  is  of  God's  appointment, 
by  the  accordance  found  in  this  institution  with  the 
general  course  of  God's  dealings  with  mankind,  and 
with  his  church  in  all  ages  ;  and  by  its  falling  in  so 
admirably  with  the  finest  feelings  of  our  nature  ;  and 
rendering  parental  affection  subsidiary  to  the  attain- 
ment of  the  great  end  proposed  in  tho  maintenance  of 
a  church  on  earth.  Infant  baptism  is  practised  on  the 
belief,  that  God  has  a  peculiar  regard  to  the  children 
of  his  people,  more  than  to  other  children  ;  that  he  is 
still  engaged,  by  promise,  to  be  their  God  ;  to  continue 
to  them  the  revelation  of  his  will,  the  ordinances  of 
his  worship,  and  among  them,  especially,  to  shower 
down  the  renewing  and  sanctifying  influences  of  his 
Holy  Spirit ;  so  that  the  piety  of  parents  is,  by  God's 
gracious  appointment,  their  ground  of  right  to  their 
children,  for  the  reception  of  an  ordinance,  which 
marks  those  children  as  that  visible  society,  to  wham 
are.  committed  the  oracles  of  God — Rom.  iii.  2;  and  to 
whom  pertaineth  the  adoptiony  and  the  service  of  God, 
9* 


102  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

and  the  promises — ix.  4.     It  is  based  on  the  conviction, 
that  the  children  are  beloved  for  their  fathers'  sake. 

Now,  that  the   condition  of  children  should  be  af- 
fected by  the  character  of  the  parents,  appears  to  be 
a  principle  constantly  acted  on  in  God's  government 
of  the  world.     The  dispensations  of  his  providence 
towards  the  world  at  large,  discover  it.     The  charac- 
ter of  parents  has  usually  a  potent  influence  on  the 
destiny  of  their  children,  for  life.     The  children  of 
parents  who  are  indolent,  dissipated,  or  grossly  wicked, 
we  expect  to  see  growing  up,  for  the  most  part,  un- 
educated and  undisciplined.     Their  habits,  we  expect, 
will  be  vicious  ;  their  portion,  poverty  ;  and  frequently, 
wretchedness  and  infamy  for  life.     But  who  fails  to 
regard  industry,  sobriety,  and  virtue,  in  the  parents, 
as  a  happy  pledge  to  the  children  of  a  virtuous  educa- 
tion, industrious  habits,  and  fair  prospects,  for  life  ? 
And  the  event  usually  justifies  these  expectations. 
Now,  he  who  directs  the  affairs  of  providence,  is  the 
God  of  the  Bible  and  of  religion ;  and  it  were  only 
reasonable  to  expect,  that  in  the  organization  of  the 
church,  there  should  be  a  special  provision   for  chil- 
dren, analogical  to  that  found  in  the  arrangements  of 
providence  ;  so  that  they  who  become  God's  people, 
should  find  their  piety  a  pledge  of  tender  mercies  to 
their  children.     Such  analogy  we  discover  in  the  bap- 
tismal covenant,  wherein,  while  the  parent  publicly 
recognises  the  child  to  be  the  sole  property  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  engages  to  bring  it  up  for  him  ;  God,  also, 
engages,  by  covenant  promise,  to  be   a  God  to  the 
child,  and  furnish  it,  as  one  of  his  visible  people, 
with  all  the  means  requisite  to  make  it  acquainted 


INPANT  BAPTISM.  103 

with  his  character,  and  his  will,  and  adapted  to  effect 
a  thorough  rcconcihation  between  it  and  himself. 

In  the  very  dawn  of  man's  history,  we  find  this  same 
principle  acted  on  in  God's  treatment  of  Adam,  the 
first  man.  On  the  character  of  the  common  parent  of 
mankind,  the  moral  character  of  all  his  posterity  was 
suspended.  Adam  fell  by  sin  ;  and  we  know  that,  By 
one  Juan's  disobedience,  the  many  were  made  sinners — 
Rom.  V.   19. 

In  God's  deahngs  with  his  church,  from  the  age  of 
Abraham  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  we  find  the  same 
principle  still  kept  in  view.  When  God  would  confer 
on  his  church  a  more  regular  organization,  he  selected 
Abraham,  and  entered  into  covenant  with  him.  From 
that  time,  for  the  sake  of  Abraham's  faith,  blessings 
flowed  largely  on  his  posterity,  for  many  generations. 
Among  them,  true  religion  was  established  and  main- 
tained ;  among  them,  the  true  church  was  found  ;  from 
among  them,  also,  the  heirs  of  life  were  taken.  These 
are  historical  facts,  plain  and  undeniable ;  all  bespeak- 
ing peculiar  favours  bestowed  on  children  for  the  pa- 
rents' sake,  during  the  entire  continuance  of  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation.  Now,  what  was  there  in  the 
conduct  of  our  adorable  Redeemer,  which  could  inti- 
mate, that  at  the  opening  of  the  gospel  dispensation, 
this  great  principle  should  be  abandoned  ?  Nothing, 
assuredly,  nothing  !  But  his  condescending  notice  of 
little  children,  (Matt.  xix.  14.  Mark  x.  14.  Luke  xviii. 
16,)  seemed  plainly  to  intimate  the  contrary.  The 
permission  granted  to  christian  parents  to  consecrate 
their  children  to  the  God  of  Abraham,  (in  whose  time 
already  the  gospel  was  in  substance  made  known,)  and 


104  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  engagement  of  Jehovah  to  be  their  God,  are  there^ 
fore,  in  beautiful  keeping  with  God's  treatment  of  men 
in  all  ages,  whether  of  the  church  or  of  the  world. 

Ungodly  men,  who  refuse  to  serve  their  Maker, 
cannot  be  supposed  to  desire  that  their  children  should 
serve  the  Lord  ;  and  we  find  in  Scripture  no  provision 
made,  no  promise  given,  to  their  children. 

But  Christians  do  love  God  ;  and  parental  feehng 
causes  them  to  desire,  with  peculiar  earnestness,  that 
their  children  should  love  and  serve  him  too.  True 
it  is,  that  piety  is  not  hereditary  ;  salvation  is  not  to 
be  secured  by  entail.  But  in  permitting  his  people  to 
consecrate  to  him  their  children  in  baptism,  the  ap- 
pointed seal  of  a  covenant,  in  which  God  promises  to 
be  the  God  of  believers,  and  of  their  seed  with  them  ; 
a  promise,  which  secures  the  maintenance  of  a  visible 
church,  in  the  line  of  the  consecrated  seed,  and  the 
continuance  among  them,  of  religious  instruction,  of 
revealed  truth,  and  divine  ordinances,  with  all  their 
inestimable  benefits,  as  means  of  salvation ;  we  see 
a  provision,  that  renders  parental  affection  subsidiary 
to  the  best  interests  of  children,  and  to  the  maintenance 
of  true  religion  on  earth,  just  as  it  was  in  ancient 
times,  and  just  as  we  might  suppose  it  ought  to  be  ;  a 
provision,  consequently,  that  commends  itself  to  the 
tenderest  feeling  of  our  hearts. 

If  we  perceived  that  infant  baptism  was,  in  its  spirit, 
opposed  to  the  general  course  of  God's  dealings  with 
mankind,  and  with  his  church  in  past  ages  ;  or  that  it 
contained  provisions  revolting  to  the  strong  feeling  of 
parental  affection,  we  might  well  pause.  But,  when 
we  perceive  that  it  is,  throughout,  in  strict  unisoa 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  105 

With  God's  general  treatment  of  men,  in  other  cases  ; 
and  that  it  enlists  parental  tenderness  in  the  hallowed 
cause  of  piety  ;  strong  confirmation  is  thereby  added 
to  our  faith,  tiiat  it  is  truly  of  Cod  ;  a  privilege  greatly 
desirable  for  our  children. 

If  christian  parents  would  carefully  weigh  this  con- 
sideration,  they  could  scarcely  fail  to  regard  it  as  an 
inestimable  privilege,  to  bring  their  children,  by  bap- 
tism, within  the  operation  of  that  covenant,  which  alone 
enjoins  it  on  parents  to  "  train  up  their  children  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  f^  and  which  alone 
conveys  the  promise,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  your  seed 
after  you  in  their  generations."  For  to  his  people 
alone,  God's  promises  apply  ;  because  his  people  alone 
acknowledge  his  authority,  and  engage  to  obey  all  his 
commands.  The  provision  found  in  Scripture  for  the 
religious  education  of  children,  is  one  of  the  blessings 
of  that  covenant,  of  which  infant  baptism  is  the  seal. 
And  no  one,  who  does  not,  by  presenting  his  children 
to  God  in  baptism,  become  a  party  to  that  covenant, 
can,  on  scriptural  grounds,  plead  the  promise  of  God 
for  his  children,  or  look  with  confidence  for  the  divine 
blessing  on  his  labours,  and  instructions  for  their  good. 
Of  the  baptized,  as  a  body,  Jehovah  engages  to  be 
their  God  in  a  peculiar  sense,  above  that  in  which  he 
is  the  God  of  all  others,  as  their  creator  and  judge. 
By  baptism,  a  child  is  incorporated  into  a  society  who 
are  now  the  visible  people  of  God,  enjoying  the  know- 
ledge of  true  religion,  and  the  means  of  grace  for  sal- 
vation ;  and  not  only  so,  but  a  society  whom  God 
graciously  engages,  in  the  baptismal  covenant,  to  con, 
tinue  as  his  visible  church  on  earth,  in  the  line  of  their 
successors,  added  to  them  by  baptism. 


106  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Baptism  is  not  conversion  :  baptism  is  not  an  infal- 
lible pledge  of  conversion  ;  but  it  is  a  pledge  to  the 
baptized,  that  among  them  the  means  of  grace  and 
the  ordinances  of  true  religion  shall  be  perpetuated. 
Without  these  ordinances,  what  hope  could  we  have  of 
men's  salvation?  Where  they  are  among  a  people, 
regenerating  influence  is  usually  sent  down,  and  souls 
are  born  again  unto  God. 

In  a  world  lying  in  wickedness,  full  of  changes  and 
revolutions,  every  unconverted  inhabitant  of  which  has 
a  heart  replete  with  infidelity,  and  enmity  against  God, 
and  impatient  of  the  restraints  imposed  by  his  laws  ;  a 
world,  whose  inhabitants,  but  for  God's  restraining 
providence,  would  speedily  combine  to  extirpate  the 
church,  and  banish  true  religion  from  the  earth  ;  it 
must  surely  be  an  invaluable  privilege  to  be  numbered 
with  a  society,  to  whom  the  omnipotent  God  pledges  the 
continuance  of  true  rehgion,  and  its  ordinances,  for  sal- 
vation. It  surely  is  desirable  to  have  our  children 
thus  housed  as  it  were,  by  baptism  among  the  people 
of  God  ;  provided  with  means  adapted  to  keep  them 
above  the  reach  of  those  billows  of  wickedness,  that 
else  would  drown  true  piety,  extinguish  the  hope  of 
life,  and  inundate  the  world  with  atheism,  and  infidelity, 
and  death. 

God  will  always  have  a  church  on  earth,  and  he  will 
bless  his  preached  word  to  men's  conversion.  But  if 
you  blot  out  the  promise,  "  /  will  be  the  God  of  Ihy  seed 
after  thee  in  their  generations,"  and  annul  the  covenant 
which  seals  to  our  children  that  promise  in  baptism, 
you  have  no  certainty,  no  divine  warrant  to  sustain 
ibe  hope,  that  God  will  not  restrain  his  gra<je  to-mor. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  lOT 

row  ;  convert  no  more  among  us  ;  continue  the  ordi- 
nances  of  his  worship  liere,  only  just  long  enough  to 
prepare  for  heaven,  all  who  are  now  true  saints  among 
us ;  and  then  leave  the  rest  to  follow  the  impulse  of 
their  native  enmity  against  him,  renounce  Christianity, 
destroy  the  bible,  desecrate  his  altars,  tear  down  his 
temples,  and  plunge  back  again  into  the  midnight 
darkness  of  paganism  and  atheism,  hurrying  away 
our  children  along  with  them ;  while  the  light  of 
heavenly  truth  shall  be  made  to  beam,  and  heavenly 
grace  shall  be  made  to  stream  down  with  saving  power, 
upon  nations  now  walking  in  darkness,  and  on  lands 
now  lying  in  the  shadow  of  death.  No  certain  pro- 
mise of  the  continuance  of  religion  in  our  land,  or 
among  our  children  can  be  found,  if  infant  baptism  be 
not  of  God.  But  if  it  be,  and  if  it  seal  to  the  bap- 
tized that  covenant,  which  conveys  the  promise  that 
God  will  be  their  God;  and  which,  of  course,  secures  the 
continuance  of  all  the  means  of  grace  among  them, 
that  they  may  know  and  serve  him  as  their  God  ;  then 
the  fear  of  our  children  returning  as  a  body  to  gross 
heathenism,  and  utterly  perishing  without  hope,  is 
taken  away.  Every  unrenewed  man's  heart  is  prone 
to  atheism,  and  but  for  the  restraints  God  imposes,  the 
unconverted,  would,  as  a  body,  plunge  into  atheism  : 
and  our  children  with  them.  These  restraints  are  no 
where  promised  to  any  particular  community  ;  and  of 
consequence  are  not  promised  to  this  community  ;  but 
in  that  very  covenant,  of  which  infant  baptism  is  the 
gracious  seal.  Let  parents  consider,  then.  Is  it  desi- 
rable that  their  children  should  dwell  where  the  gospel 
is  ?  That  they  should  sit  under  its  sound,  and  enjoy  its 


108  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ordinances  7  Amid  all  the  vicissitudes  of  this  wicked 
world  nothing  furnishes  us  with  an  infallible  certainty 
of  these  blessings  being  continued  to  them,  but  their 
being  joined  to  the  visible  people  of  the  omnipotent 
God  in  baptism :  for  to  the  baptized  alone  does  he 
absolutely  pledge  the  continuance  of  the  lively  ora- 
cles, the  services  of  God,  and  the  promises. 

Once  more,  infant  baptism  commends  itself  to  pious 
parents  with  peculiar  force,  in  view  of  our  entire  depra- 
vity, and  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God^s  grace. 

All  men  lie  involved  in  one  common  condemnation, 
without  any  title  to  the  favour  of  God  ;  and  even  they 
to  whom  the  gospel  offer  is  made,  if  left  to  themselves, 
will  madly  reject  the  offer  and  perish.  With  hearts 
thus  at  enmity  against  God,  and  bent  on  destruction, 
are  the  children  of  christians,  just  as  truly  as  others  •" 
while  God  asserts  his  right  to  dispense  his  renovating 
grace  according  to  his  sovereign  will :  "  He  will  have 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy. ^^  But  when  we 
find  from  among  the  fallen  children  of  men,  some 
who,  by  divine  authority,  are  organized  into  one  visible 
society,  under  the  provisions  of  a  covenant  conveying 
the  promise  that  Jehovah  will  he  their  God ;  when  we 
find  that  in  times  of  old,  it  was  from  among  these,  the 
children  of  his  covenant,  that  God  selected  the  heirs 
of  life  ;  when  we  find  that  in  his  holy  word,  God  shows 
his  regard  to  the  covenant  of  lineally  descending 
blessing,  by  styling  himself  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob  ;  is  there  not  ample  ground  to  hope 
that  God,  though  sovereign  in  the  bestowment  of  his 
favours,  will  nevertheless,  in  selecting  from  among 
those  who  are  all  justly  condemned,  the  recipients  c^ 


INFANT    BAI'TISM,  109 

his  saving  morcy,  continue,  as  of  old,  to  manifest  pe- 
culiar regard  to   that  covenant,  still  in  force,  still  be- 
Jieved  in,  and  pleaded  by  his  people,  by  pouring  down 
the   unmerited   favour  of  his  renovating  grace,  most 
richly,  within  the   line  formed  by  the  covenant  seal  f 
Hitherto  God  has  done  this  in  a  remarkable  manner. 
For  in  every  age,  from  the  time  of  Abraham,  m  almost 
every  christian  church,  and  every  revival  of  religion. 
a  vast  majority  of  those   hopefully  converted,   have 
been  such  as  had  had   the  seal  of  God's  covenant  af- 
fixed to  them  in  their  childhood.     So  long,  then,  as  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  is  still  in  force,  and  diffuses 
its  blessings  on  the  gentiles  ;  so  long  as  God  still  pro- 
mises to  be  a  God  to  his  people  and  their  seed  ;  so  long 
as  the  Bible  records   him  as  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob  ;   so  long  as,  in  the  dealings  of  his 
providence  with  his  church,  a  regard  so  marked  to 
the  baptized  seed  of  the  covenant,  is  undeniably  dis. 
covered,  in  the   conversion  of  a  large   proportion  of 
such,  rather  than  of  the  unbaptized  ;  christian  parents 
have  reason  to  regard  baptism,  in  the  midst  of  a  world 
inundated  with  wickedness,  ever  inclining  to  atheism, 
and  inveterate  in  hostility  against  the   blessed  gospel^ 
as  opening,  like  Noah's  ark  of  old,  an  asylum  for  the 
children  of  the  church  ;  securing  them,  as  a  body,  from 
utter  ignorance   of  the  true   God  ;    and    affording    a 
•cheering  prospect  of  probability  for  their  conversion 
to  God.     No  christian  parent  can   duly  ponder  these 
considerations,  as  it  would  seem,  without  feehng  de- 
sirous to  see  his  children  added  to  the  visible  people 
of  God  by  baptism,  even  in  early  infancy. 

Parents  who  have  dedicated  their  children  to  God.  are 
10 


110  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

especially  called  upon  to  consider  the  duties  incumbent 
on  them. 

Such  parents,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  are  themselves 
behevers,  professing  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
The  cases  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  of  house- 
holds baptized,  are  such  as  followed  the  evidence  of 
faith  furnished  by  the  head  of  the  house.  The  chil- 
dren, declared  by  the  apostle  Paul  to  be  holy,  (i.  e.  fit 
to  be  consecrated  to  God,)  are  those,  of  whose  parents, 
one,  at  least,  is  regarded  by  the  church  as  a  believer. 
The  child  has  no  right  in  itself,  but  in  its  parent,  as  a 
believer ;  as  one  who  comes  before  the  church,  de- 
claring that  he  personally  trusts  in  God's  promise,  "  1 
will  he  a  God  to  thee ,-"  and  desires  to  claim,  for  his 
child,  the  application  of  that  ordinance  appointed  as  a 
covenant  seal,  to  interest  it  in  the  same  blessing  ;  ac- 
cording to  the  other  part  of  the  promise,  '•  I  will  he  a 
God  to  thy  seed.''' 

Every  parent,  therefore,  who  comes  forward  intel- 
ligently, to  ask  baptism  for  a  child,  asks  it  as  a  seal  of 
the  covenant  with  Abraham ;  and  in  so  doing,  he 
publicly  assents  to  the  terms  of  that  gracious  covenant ; 
i.  e.  he  avouches  the  Lord  to  be  his  God  ;  which  is 
virtually  making  a  full  profession  of  piety.  Let  every 
parent,  who  has  presented  his  children  to  God  in  bap- 
tism, bear  this  in  mind.  Whether  he  intended  it  or  not, 
he  did  in  that  act  openly  declare  the  Lord  to  be  his 
God,  and  acknowledge  himself  bound  to  obey  all  God's 
commandments.  Can  he,  after  this,  refuse  to  sit  down 
at  the  Lord's  table  ?  Or  refuse  to  prepare  himself  to 
partake,  in  the  manner  God  requires?  Or  refuse  to  train 
up  his  children  prayerfully  for  God,  without  proving 
himself  a  covenant-breaker  ? 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  Ill 

Moreover,  tlic  truths  rcj)resciite(l,  and  tl>e  promises 
implied,  in  presenting  a  child  to  CJod  in  haptisni,  ren- 
der  the  duly  of  parents  to  labour  assiduously  and 
prayerfully,  for  the  conversion  of  their  baptized  chil- 
dren, too  plain  to  be  doubted.  I'he  parent,  by  the 
very  act  of  presenting  his  child  for  baptism,  (if  he  un- 
derstand what  he  is  doing,)  significantly  intimates, 
that  he  regards  his  child  as  a  depraved  being,  needing 
renovation,  and  an  interest  in  Christ  for  salvation  ;  as 
one  cut  off  from  all  hope  on  any  ground,  other  than  the 
sovereign  mercy  of  God,  dispensed  through  Jesus 
Christ ;  the  application  of  whose  cleansing  blood  is 
herein  typically  exhibited.  This  act  plainly  intimates, 
that  the  parent  believes  God  has  a  peculiarly  gracious 
regard  for  the  seed  of  his  people  ;  that  them  God 
claims  as  his  own ;  for  them,  God  has  provided  reli- 
gious  instruction  ;  and  from  among  them,  chiefly,  as 
marked  by  baptism,  God  will  take  his  chosen  race. 
Now,  how  can  that  parent,  who,  in  sincere  belief  of 
all  this,  presents  his  children  for  baptism,  afterwards 
neglect  any  known  means  for  their  conversion  ?  If, 
by  the  truth,  God  renovates  the  heart,  the  believing 
parent  will  assiduously  seek  to  imbue  the  minds  of  his 
children  with  the  truth  ;  and  so  to  present  it,  embodied 
in  his  life,  and  sustained  by  his  example,. as  may  pro- 
mise  best  to  reach  the  heart,  and  rouse  the  consciences 
of  his  children.  And  one  great  advantage  accruing 
from  infant  baptism,  lies  in  its  tendency  to  impress 
parents  with  a  sense  of  their  obligations  to  train  up 
their  children  for  God,  and  incite  them  to  do  it.  It 
does  not  create  that  obligation,  but  it  deepens  it ;  and  it 
is  well  calculated  to  imprint  a  sense  of  that  obligation 


112  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

on  the  parent's  heart.  It  is  a  solemn,  religious  ordi- 
nance ;  symboUcally  setting  forth  the  most  affecting 
truths  of  the  gospel ;  implying  the  most  solemn  profes- 
sions and  promises  on  the  part  of  the  parent ;  an  ordi- 
nance usually  performed  in  the  house  of  God,  in  the 
presence  of  his  assembled  church,  and  in  the  view  of 
hundreds  of  spectators.  It  is  an  era  distinctly  marked 
in  the  history  of  parent  and  child  ;  every  recollection 
of  which,  speaks  to  the  parent's  conscience,  of  God's 
claim  to  that  child  ;  and  of  obligations  publicly  recog- 
nised, to  train  it  up  for  him.  And,  consequently,  in- 
fant baptism  is  a  pledge  to  baptized  children  of  a  more 
careful  religious  education  than  they  could  enjoy  with- 
out it.  And  it  affords  to  parents  no  light  ground  of 
hope,  that  their  prayerful  and  believing  efforts  for  their 
children's  conversion  to  God,  will  be  crowned  with  his 
blessing. 

Lastly,  Baptized  persons  should  consider  the  relations 
into  which  they  are  brought  hy  their  baptism,  and  the 
duties  thence  devolving  upon  them. 

By  your  baptism  in  infancy,  you  were  brought  into 
a  near  and  peculiar  relation  to  the  church  of  God  ; 
you  were  numbered  among  the  lambs  of  the  flock  : 
you  obtained  an  interest  in  the  prayers  of  God's  peo- 
ple ;  and  a  right  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  those  ordinances 
of  Christ,  and  those  means  of  grace,  which  Christ  has 
appointed  for  infant  members  of  his  church.  These 
are,  the  instruction  and  godly  example  of  parents  ; 
their  watchfulness  over  the  children's  conduct,  reproof 
of  their  errors,  and  prayers  for  their  welfare  ;  together 
with  attendance  on  public  worship,  and  on  the  duties 
of  family  religion.  But  the  great  end  of  all  these  means 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  113 

was  to  lead  you  to  embrace  religion  of  your  own  free 
choice ;  to  lead  you,  in  genuine  repentance,  to  a  Saviour's 
feet ;  to  lead  you  to  acknowledge,  by  a  living  faith, 
the  God  of  your  fathers  as  your  God  ;  and,  on  a  pro- 
fession of  that  faith,  to  take  your  place  with  the  church 
at  the  Lord's  table.  Every  circumcised  person,  under 
the  law,  was  bound,  on  arriving  at  a  suitable  age,  to 
recognise,  by  his  own  act,  the  covenant,  God  of  Abra- 
ham as  his  God,  by  taking  part  in  the  solemn  services 
of  the  passover,  as  the  law  directed  ;  or  he  forfeited 
his  interest  in  the  covenant  mercies  of  Abraham's 
God.  His  refusal  cut  him  off  from  God's  people. 
(Compare  Numb.  ix.  13.) 

In  like  manner,  every  baptized  person,  on  reaching 
years  of  discretion,  is  bound  to  become  a  voluntary 
party  to  the  baptismal  covenant,  by  taking  for  his  God. 
the  God,  who  in  his  baptism,  sealed  him  as  His  own,: 
yielding  submission  to  his  claims  ;  accepting  the  pro- 
vision made  for  him  through  Christ,  the  promised  seed  ; 
and  openly  avowing  the  Lord  to  be  his  God,  by  sitting 
down  with  a  penitent  and  believing  heart  at  the  Lord's 
table.  If  he  fail  to  do  this,  he  refuses  obedience  to 
God's  known  will ;  and  thus  voluntarily  deprives  him- 
self of  all  further  advantages  provided  in  the  covenant 
he  despises.  Circumcision  did  not,  of  itself,  entitle 
the  Jew  to  eat  the  passover,  till  he  satisfied  those  ap- 
pointed by  the  law  to  preside  at  that  solemnity,  that 
he  was  legally  purified.  In  like  manner,  baptism  does 
not  of  itself  qualify  a  person  to  participate  of  the  gospel 
passover,  the  Lord's  supper,  till  he  give  evidence  to  the 
church  that  he  is  clean  as  the  gospel  prescribes  ;  i.  e. 
penitent  for  sin,  and  purified  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  by 


]  14  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  Holy  Ghost  shed  abroad  in  his  heart.  Baptism 
under  the  gospel,  like  circumcision  under  the  law, 
confers  membership  in  the  visible  church.  But,  as  in 
the  Old  Testament  church,  (a  comparatively  dark 
dispensation,)  outward  purification  was  an  indispensa- 
ble preparation  for  participation  in  the  further  privi- 
leges of  the  church,  and  his  circumcision  laid  a  man 
under  solemn  obligation  to  secure  that  preparation 
before  he  could  participate,  and  that,  too,  on  pain  of 
excision  from  all  those  church  privileges.  So,  under 
the  more  perfect  dispensation  in  the  gospel  church, 
inward  purification,  by  a  living  faith,  is  the  preparation 
required  of  baptized  persons,  for  participation  in  the 
further  privileges  of  the  church,  provided  in  the  Lord's 
supper  ;  and  his  baptism  lays  every  baptized  person 
under  the  highest  obligation  to  secure  that  preparation, 
in  unfeigned  repentance  ;  and  to  give  evidence  of  it  to 
the  church,  in  a  godly  and  consistent  life. 

All  who  hear  the  gospel,  are  bound  to  repent,  and 
to  consecrate  themselves  to  God.  But  they  who  have 
been  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  by  believing  parents, 
have  this  obligation  pressing  upon  them  with  peculiar 
force.  You  are  the  Lord's,  my  baptized  reader  ;  he 
claims  you  as  his.  His  seal,  the  token  of  his  covenant 
right  to  you,  has  by  his  own  authority  been  placed  upon 
you.  It  is  your  privilege,  your  birthright,  to  avail 
yourself  of  the  means  of  grace,  that  you  may  know 
God's  will  ;  seek  him  as  your  Lord,  and  obtain  an 
interest  in  his  saving  favour,  by  surrendering  your 
heart  to  him  in  early  youth. 

You  can  never  divest  yourself  of  God's  seal.  If 
you  are  licentious,  or  profane,  or  infidel,  or  coldly 


INFANT    BAPTISir.  115 

moral,  turning  a  deaf  ear  to  tlic  blessed  Saviour's  call, 
still  you  are  baptized.  And  is  it  not  enougb  to  nnake 
angels  weep,  and  saints  in  glory  weep,  to  behold  bap- 
tized sabbath-breakers,  baptized  swearers,  baj)tized 
profligates,  baptized  rejecters  of  a  Saviour's  grace,  in 
the  midst  of  gospel  light  and  gospel  motives  ?  Every 
baptized  person,  who  continues  impenitent,  is  like 
profane  Esau — he  despises  his  birthright. 

Does  any  baptized  sinner  say  within  himself,  "  If 
my  baptism  lays  me  under  such  obligations,  I  will  re- 
nounce it.  I  was  baptized  without  my  consent  being 
asked,  and  I  will  not  hold  myself  bound  by  such  a 
transaction."  Stay!  This  is,  indeed,  despising  your 
birthright,  and  the  guilt  of  profane  Esau  undeniably 
rests  upon  you.  What,  a  sinner  renounce  his  baptism  ! 
Shake  off  the  obligations  it  imposes  !  You  may  as  well 
attempt  to  renounce  your  allegiance  to  God,  shake  off 
your  responsibility  to  his  judgment  bar,  and  determine 
that  your  life  shall  not  be  a  probation  for  eternity  ! 

The  God  who  created  you,  and  created  you  a  subject 
of  his  moral  government,  bound  to  obey  his  laws,  on 
your  responsibility  at  his  dread  tribunal,  placed  you  on 
trial  under  christian  privileges.  He  gave  you  to 
christian  parents,  commanded  them  to  affix  on  you  the 
seal  of  his  covenant ;  and  he  holds  you  personally 
bound  to  accept  the  terms  of  that  covenant,  and  to 
become  one  of  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  by  true 
and  living  faith  ;  as  fully  and  as  truly  as  he  holds  you 
bound  to  be  honest,  and  to  speak  the  truth.  As  many 
of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ.  You  are  given  to  Christ,  marked  as  his  pro- 
perty, bound  to  obey  him,  to  confide  in  him  by  faith. 


IIG  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

and  serve  him  with  affectionate  zeal,  under  the  high 
sanctions  of  eternal  life  on  your  obedience,  everlasting 
wretchedness  the  fruit  of  disobedience. 

May  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  crown  with  his  approbation  this 
humble  attempt  to  vindicate  his  blessed  covenant,  ren- 
der it  conducive  to  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of 
truth,  and  the  edification  and  enlargement  of  his  church 
— Amen  ! 

NzwARK,  Feb.  12,  1831. 


ERRATA. 

Page  5,  line  9,/or  "furnishes,"  read  furnish. 
p.  22,  note,  13th  line  from  bottom,  for  "t»  xoytx,^^  read  t±  A6yii< 
p.  24,  4th  line  of  note,  for  "  Apostolus  ideam,"  read  idem  Apos- 
tolus, 
p.  24,  note,  line  10, /or  "procipuum,"  read  praecipuum. 
p.  53,  5th  line  of  note, /or  '*  phraise,"  read  phrase, 
pv  93j  line  I7th  from  foot, /or  "jfive  hundred,"  read  sii  hundred. 


